The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
evangambit
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
evangambit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 60079
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Aerogant

Pro

Argument: For an example, let's say a group of kids are talking about race cars. Someone who follows the title of this debate may come into this group with their own ideas on race cars. The kids are not really interested in the deep ideas of race cars, so they reduce their discussion to "cool", "awesome", "rad", and so on. The newcomer starts talking about how the race cars remind them of people that are always rushing their lives away throughout the same direction; same circle, as to take one topic and use its elements to express another topic in a clever manner. The kids start to grow tired of the newcomer, thus they start banding together against the newcomer. A wise man can see that the newcomer was making the discussion interesting, but because they took a small discussion and turned it into a grand discussion, the kids that do not share that same wisdom see it as off-topic and boring, as wisdom brings pain - pain causes people to think; thinking is not for the meek.

We live in a Universe that is ever-changing; ever-evolving. The dogs and birds today are based on the design of dinosaurs back then. Everything now is based on what still is, or once was throughout the faculties of the cosmic system which creates a self-similarity pattern that can be observed by simply researching Fibonacci's Sequence. The spiral, alone, is proof that nothing can be off-topic, for all things lead to an ultimatum; a cosmic hierarchy of elements and properties which make everything so. Life is not about petty small talk - it's about escaping our negligent ways to pursue things greater than ourselves. Great minds think of ideas; average minds think of events; small minds think of people. Small talk, is self-evident by its name, yet billions are caught up in doing it, in spite of it treating our reality like the Sims. To say something is Off-Topic, is to deny exploration and cross-referential intuition. To deny thereof, is to deny evolution; to deny becoming. There is no wise man that tells you something is Off-Topic - they are omni-reverent beings; they do not pick and choose what relates to them, because they know that everything in life can relate to them at one point or another based entirely on how much you allowed yourself to see with your brain, not your eyes. Thus Off-Topic defeats itself, as it, itself, is Off-Topic; Irrelevant; Deterrent towards the Universe and its Oneness. The great say "Oneness"; the ungrateful say "Off-Topic".

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability.
evangambit

Con

First some definitions:

Off topic: "not relevant to the subject in question".
relevant: "closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand"

Second, a brief redefinition of your argument (if you'll permit me): "Off-topic cannot rationally be applied, as our universe is multifaceted and completely interconnected". I redefine this to "rationally" rather than "logically" because I feel it is a more accurate description of your argument. If not, please explain how you would apply formal logic (and what your assumptions are) to determine if the term "off topic" can or cannot be applied.

Anyway, here it goes:

First and foremost, tying the argument "everything is connected" to your claim seems to over-complicate what "off topic" means. Certainly "everything" is not "closely connected" to everything else (while a butterfly may cause a storm in millennium, it would be futile to discuss the two together and expect to come to a more accurate conclusion about whether an ancient butterfly caused a current storm or whether a current storm implies an ancient butterfly). Nor is "everything" appropriate (if the purpose of discussion is to actually produce a tangible idea, rather than exchange words that fail to improve our knowledge or even realistically describe the world).

My opponent might counter that "the subject in question" is "everything". To which I could only reply that the discussion of "everything" is physically impossible, both in terms of physical communication and mental conceptualization. And any reasonable criteria for a "successful" conversation/debate must bear this in mind. By the limitations of our feeble minds, any discussion of worth must be restricted to specific subjects.

For instance, if a "successful" conversation results in a more accurate understanding of the universe, we can hardly discuss theories of quantum mechanics and the orbit of Jupiter and expect to derive greater understanding of either from the other.

The only context in which Pro's argument seems reasonable is one in which the goal is to marvel at the complexity of the universe " and certainly this has some appeal (though again, talking about things so distantly connected we cannot comprehend their connection seems, again, counter-productive).

Ultimately though, I think the truth is closer to this: the successfulness of a conversation is determined by the goals those participating have for it. In this context the answer of this debate seems clear: if people desire a conversation that leads to in-depth, meaningful discussion, they must limit the range of their topic.

Pro's anecdote suggests that these children are quite frankly not interested in drawing analogies between racing and life. That they are morally or ethically bound to participate in such a discussion is absurd and their frustration at someone for deliberately undermining their attempt to have a "successful" conversation (e.g. pass the time, enjoy themselves, grow closer, discuss the ascetics of race cars, etc.) is certainly understandable.

To specifically look at some of my opponent's points:

"The spiral, alone, is proof that nothing can be off-topic, for all things lead to an ultimatum; a cosmic hierarchy of elements and properties which make everything so."

I do not understand how the Fibonacci Sequence suggests that everything is connected. That we often classify using a hierarchy does not suggest that any two topics are relevant enough to discuss simultaneously.

"Life is not about petty small talk - it's about escaping our negligent ways to pursue things greater than ourselves."

While this seems fairly admirable, it seems dismissive to suggest that life isn't about small talk " on the contrary, I would suggest that our connections with other people are of great significance and that small talk is an effective tool to build meaningful connections with others. I enjoy a philosophical or academic discussion as much as anyone " and, indeed, am fairly miserable at small talk, but nonetheless feel I cannot discount its importance.

"Great minds think of ideas; average minds think of events; small minds think of people. Small talk, is self-evident by its name, yet billions are caught up in doing it, in spite of it treating our reality like the Sims."

It is worth noting that "Sims" is a "sim"-ulation of our society, so if there are similarities, it is hardly surprising. Even accepting your un-cited quote "Great minds... of people" as true, I don't believe that eliminating these "superficial" discussions would really be of benefit to mankind.

"To say something is Off-Topic, is to deny exploration and cross-referential intuition."

If poorly done, yes. If well done it can actually allow the discussion to explore things more meaningfully (e.g. non-sequitars are detrimental to discussions), and at the same time prune out discussion that is pragmatically irrelevant.

"Thus Off-Topic defeats itself, as it, itself, is Off-Topic; Irrelevant; Deterrent towards the Universe and its Oneness. The great say 'Oneness'; the ungrateful say 'Off-Topic' "

"Off-topic" is not off topic in many scenarios. If the purpose of a discussion is to develop and market a new computer chip, the rising pitch of bird chirps will be only detrimental to the discussion. Declaring it "off-topic" in such a scenario is very much ON topic, as it is contributing to a successful discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

You're already breaking the rules by using political traits, instead of philosophical traits; looking for an answer that doesn't exist, in a Universe you think is big, when you just haven't accepted that you're too small, naive and young to understand that the Universe is all connected on a grand scale right now. Wise men have warned us to take everything as we would take a flash of lightning - you're not doing this. What you are doing is looking for an answer that doesn't exist because you're compensating for what you never could know, just understand or misunderstand - the things that I say are so far out there, that you don't even have a clue how far down from the heavens you are right now to see that I and other wise men have been able to take this brain of ours and reach places beyond this planet with our analysis.

For an example, I can tell you right now that the reason why Man says the Universe is so "big and unable to be understood", is because they are projecting their inner dark matter; their ignorance towards what little they understand of this Universe - how not understanding anything makes everything look bigger than what it is in actuality. So think of Man like an object in space - when they reduce themselves to a small figure, everything around them appears bigger; when they ascend and expand, they no longer see other things big, except themselves. The entire idea of being wise is the same feeling of one day waking up and realizing you can reach over the counter instead of wondering what lies up there.

Therefore you're just begging the question based on what little you know; which you do not have the capacity of analysis that I have, to deal with something that is on a grand scale; which is everything the wise have been warning us about since the first wise man. "Non-sequitor" - as if you ever heard any wise man use this term. There is a reason why they can answer any of your questions whether it involves a tiny blade of grass to the cosmic wonder of the Universe - wisdom is everywhere, therefore everything can be connected to one ultimatum. Arguing sides of reality, just further proves that your brain is not omni-reverent like my own, or that of a wise man's, towards this Universe. The wise can see connections in these stars - the unwise cannot. The wise can break down the human mind and the Universe through and through - the unwise cannot. The wise can live their inner genius - the unwise merely have a stroke of genius. The wise have acknowledged that every thing we do, say and think can be explained in a simple manner by understanding that when you look at atoms alone, they look like they truly make our head explode, but when you look at them from a higher perspective, you'll then see that they are not as complicated as they appeared in numbers.

Just because this Universe operates in numbers beyond our imagination - it does not mean that it is complicated in what these numbers represent as a body. Everything that "is", has a simple form - just take off the Universe's masks, then all will be revealed to yours truly. I have already broken down this Universe to the point that I now can explain sex on a cosmic level - male genitalia is the star which explodes; female genitalia is the black hole which creates.

You're going to have to argue with facts, friend. Right now, you're arguing with your feelings and limited perception towards the hidden wonders of this Universe that I spent my entire life analyzing; I breathe philosophy. I'm sure you cannot say the same, and with that, I highly suggest you to accept the possibility that I understand this Universe more than you do.
evangambit

Con

I apologize that this is so long. To anyone following this debate who is hesitant to read it, take some comfort in knowing that much of it is simply quoting the previous post paragraph by paragraph, which should hopefully make my own arguments clearer. I have put the 'quotes' in [quote][/quote] tags to hopefully make it clearer.

[quote]
"You're already breaking the rules by using political traits, instead of philosophical traits; looking for an answer that doesn't exist, in a Universe you think is big, when you just haven't accepted that you're too small, naive and young to understand that the Universe is all connected on a grand scale right now. Wise men have warned us to take everything as we would take a flash of lightning - you're not doing this. What you are doing is looking for an answer that doesn't exist because you're compensating for what you never could know, just understand or misunderstand - the things that I say are so far out there, that you don't even have a clue how far down from the heavens you are right now to see that I and other wise men have been able to take this brain of ours and reach places beyond this planet with our analysis."
[/quote]

I confess I'm not entirely sure how I'm "using political traits". Can you describe exactly what you mean by this? I in no way meant to violate the rules of the debate.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I have not rejected your claim that the Universe is "all connected", but have assumed it true for the sake of discussion. My argument blatantly accepts that I'm "too small, naive and young" to understand the Universe on such a "grand scale". I simply take this further and suggest that I will never be able to understand the Universe at a level high enough to make all facets of it connect in meaningful ways. Nobody is able to understand the universe to this degree. For instance, nobody could not use the half-life of a uranium isotope to shed light on the economics of Europe.

Indeed, this is how I believe most useful discussions work: I accept your premises but reject your conclusion. I am arguing that, even accepting that everything in the Universe is interconnected (which, incidentally seems to reject causality and the speed of light's place in it), this is not reason enough to reject the phrase "off topic" as being inapplicable to conversation.

Please understand that I remain skeptical that I am "far down from the heavens" compared to you and others. If you have anything that might convince me that your understanding is "beyond" what most of the population (or I) can comprehend, I'd be eager to see it.

[quote]
"For an example, I can tell you right now that the reason why Man says the Universe is so 'big and unable to be understood', is because they are projecting their inner dark matter; their ignorance towards what little they understand of this Universe - how not understanding anything makes everything look bigger than what it is in actuality. So think of Man like an object in space - when they reduce themselves to a small figure, everything around them appears bigger; when they ascend and expand, they no longer see other things big, except themselves. The entire idea of being wise is the same feeling of one day waking up and realizing you can reach over the counter instead of wondering what lies up there."
[/quote]

Please do not use the word "dark matter" in this context. It misuses the word and is detrimental to accurate communication between us.

I do not claim the Universe cannot be understood, only that looking at it holistically is impossible and will always fall short of a more compartmentalized approach (naturally at a reasonable level). If you can offer an argument that your school of thought offers a better understanding of the universe, I'd be very eager to hear it. Please understand though that the criteria that I (and many scientists) judge "understanding" of reality is based on the ability to predict it. If you have an alternative measurement of "meaningfulness" or "understanding" I'd be eager to hear it.

[quote]
"Therefore you're just begging the question based on what little you know; which you do not have the capacity of analysis that I have, to deal with something that is on a grand scale; which is everything the wise have been warning us about since the first wise man. 'Non-sequitor' - as if you ever heard any wise man use this term. There is a reason why they can answer any of your questions whether it involves a tiny blade of grass to the cosmic wonder of the Universe - wisdom is everywhere, therefore everything can be connected to one ultimatum. Arguing sides of reality, just further proves that your brain is not omni-reverent like my own, or that of a wise man's, towards this Universe. The wise can see connections in these stars - the unwise cannot. The wise can break down the human mind and the Universe through and through - the unwise cannot. The wise can live their inner genius - the unwise merely have a stroke of genius. The wise have acknowledged that every thing we do, say and think can be explained in a simple manner by understanding that when you look at atoms alone, they look like they truly make our head explode, but when you look at them from a higher perspective, you'll then see that they are not as complicated as they appeared in numbers."
[/quote]

I place little stock in your claims of what "wise men do". I have little evidence that suggests you know wiser people than I do, nor that "wise men" (as you define "wise") necessarily have a better understanding of the universe. I don't claim to be wise or to have a thorough understanding of "wisdom", but can only point that the men and women who have contributed most the "conversation of the universe" are the scientists that practiced what I mentioned above: isolating variables, limiting possibilities, and generalizing relationships. They recognized that limiting their 'discussion' to closely related topics was of far greater worth than some hodgepodge of the academic fields.

On a side note, your omni-reverent brain need not contradict what I believe is a more pragmatic way to understand the universe. Respect for everything does not necessitate that a substantial connection connects all facets of the universe.

I would suggest that you not discount others as being lesser (my apologies if you are not) for having specific interests and hobbies rather than your less directed reverence towards all reality.

[quote]
"Just because this Universe operates in numbers beyond our imagination - it does not mean that it is complicated in what these numbers represent as a body. Everything that "is", has a simple form - just take off the Universe's masks, then all will be revealed to yours truly. I have already broken down this Universe to the point that I now can explain sex on a cosmic level - male genitalia is the star which explodes; female genitalia is the black hole which creates."
[/quote]

I think you are mistaking analogies with understanding and/or meaning. The ability to create an analogy is not sound evidence that two things are related. As I posted above, ultimately predictions are how we measure the soundness of a theory, and I have seen no evidence that any of your analogies can predict the universe with anywhere near the accuracy of the less holistic theories based on isolated models.

More specifically, the analogy you have formed doesn't seem to offer any greater understanding of the universe. I am actually rather confused at its purpose at all (for my own curiosity, could you please be more explicit about the similarities between supernova, black holes, genders, and sex?).

[quote]
"You're going to have to argue with facts, friend. Right now, you're arguing with your feelings and limited perception towards the hidden wonders of this Universe that I spent my entire life analyzing; I breathe philosophy. I'm sure you cannot say the same, and with that, I highly suggest you to accept the possibility that I understand this Universe more than you do"
[/quote]

Claiming my perception is limited is not a counter argument. I have made (in opinion) convincing arguments that demonstrate why a reasonable restriction of topic is a good paradigm to have if your goal is anything other than omni-reverance of the universe. I believe you have yet to make any arguments for why omni-reverance is good, let alone that non-sequitars are a good way to achieve it.

Rest assured I have not rejected your claim out of hand, but I need more substantial arguments than analogies, unattributed claims to "wise men", and your experience with philosophical thought for me to rationally make it compete with rationality and empiricism.

Ultimately, I think my counter-arguments can be summarized as the following:

- Similarities between phenomenon is not convincing evidence that they are connected. Additionally, I'd appreciate if whatever analogies you use in the future be more clearly explained for my relatively mediocre mind. Both the "bees and electrons" and the "cosmic sex" analogies seem flawed to me, to the extent where using them in this debate seems unreasonable. I may be merely interpreting them wrong. Regardless, please clarify these or offer an alternative.

- No human I have ever met or heard of (with the exception of you) has been able to conceptualize the incredible complexity of our universe as a whole, let alone create anything meaningful from such a conceptualization. I do not regard analogies - even if they are correct - as meaningful creations in and of themselves; they have to reveal something about the universe we did not know before.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

I will be using letters to distinguish what I am responding to in chronological order from first response (all paragraphs in each response will be paraphrased) to last:

A. Do not seek answers - ask questions. You can ask questions, while still opposing my position as I ask my own questions. You questioned me with answer-ability, not analysis. You must provide your own question without wanting me to provide you an answer, as philosophy is designed to shake the foundation of Man's current systems. I cannot answer what has yet to be discovered, which lies solely in question as I feel that what I am questioning will be discovered by me very soon with all the analysis I've made so far. Your questions will pose against my question - in that, I will come to my own answers; you will come to your own answers. These answers can never go any further than what we have gathered thus far. This philosophical discussion is designed to think outside of the box, with intentions to hit a mark.

B. It is dark matter, as the human mind is born and lived through the same process as the Universe. The neurons in our brain are "human stars". Instead of being close-minded towards my expanded version of dark matter, question it. My school of thought has lead me to many grand conclusions such as: 1) the male genitalia on a cosmic level is the star which explodes; the female genitalia is the black hole which creates. 2) the asteroid belt on a human level is the kidney stones we suffer from when we slack on iron, while also having calcium build up. 3) water can be posited as being the consciousness, hence the chemical which allows us to dream at night those worlds beyond our reality, contains 99% water; water reflects, like consciousness; consciousness is easily disturbed like water; both flow; both contain a surface and a below-surface. 4) the human eye contains patterns of a nebula. 5) the human body is influenced by the turtle's, the clam's, the jelly fish's and many other sea creatures on top of subatomic matter. 6) electrons behave like bees; humans wash their hands like flies. 7) when humans are in a group, and then something causes them to break apart, you'll see that they break away exactly like gas molecules. 8) did I mention that the black hole is legitimately the female's genitalia and the star that explodes is legitimately the male's genitalia? I figure this out. Nobody has thought about this - this, alone, will prove to everyone how far I've gone into breaking down this entire Universe by understanding the secrets of learning the mirror-like bond between Us and the Universe.

C. Nikola Tesla, a genius beyond any man, as according to Albert Einstein, warned today's science that it is thinking deeper, rather than clearer. This is to say that the base formula is enough to understand a result - however, scientists are taking this base formula and multiplying it endlessly, which eventually loses face of reality. The man said it himself, I have been following this principle far before I came across this man, myself. Science is not pragmatic - philosophy is pragmatic. Philosophy is the father of Science - without questioning, there wouldn't be experimenting. This is to say that I am well aware of what works and what does not in this Universe we all share, but live individually at the same time. This is to say that by saying I know more than you, is not to belittle you - it's the result of me knowing more than you do, as I have sacrificed everything to achieve this level of analysis.

D. There's a reason why the brain makes these connections, friend. So let me help you establish the difference between connection and commitment: when someone connects with something, they do not take it personal, even though the experience of an enlightenment may cause them to be emotional - when someone commits to something, they take it person, even though evidence may cause them to deny the essential. All wise man are like water - they can take up any form. Those that connect, are becoming - those that commit, are regressing. If you want to see what I see between a woman's vagina and a black hole, simply Google the image "Black Eye Hole", there should be a picture near the top that will give you just the right angle to understand exactly what I mean. Otherwise, you will not have the power of analysis I have, as I could see this correlation by simply observing the contrasts of the Universe - this is to say that I cosmically reverse-engineered my analysis to come to that conclusion.

E. Keep in mind that you're not asking enough questions - you're asking for the sake of your own confusion. This is poison for the brain - always open yourself up and accept the possibility that what you're doing is not constructive and is in fact destructive. We are all architects - this world is our archive. It's silly to say that omni-reverance may not be good, when the wise have always spoke the words of the Universe at its most refined state. Nothing can go wrong when you admire everything and accept everything whether it be negative or positive. I do not mind your skepticism - I do mind your lack of question.

- I know that causation does not always equal correlation, but this statement is used more often than not to excuse those that know what they are talking about because what they say is beyond anything the receiver ever experienced, let alone had to think about. The Universe wears many masks - everything that is "human" can be explained, defined and demonstrated by cross-referencing everything of it to the design of the Universe.

- If you do not understand how to take this Universe as cosmic poem, you will never grow to understand the cosmic tapestry I have lying in my hands because it does not share your literal views - such views that are created by those that have fallen to the illusion of reality, what with labels, systems and objects made by naive and foolish Man.
evangambit

Con

[A]
I certainly CAN ask questions while opposing your position, but if neither of us are required to answer the other's questions, this debate seems to be only a description of our two paradigms without any truly meaningful interaction. And the only way to truly "shake the foundation of Man's current systems" is to make arguments that are convincing rather than a series of questions. It is certainly fair to say that you "cannot answer what has yet to be discovered" if your paradigm is inferior to that modern-day science, but does it not seem reasonable to expect a paradigm that claims to be more effective than mine to offer a model that is superior to mine?

The entirety of your argument for the irrationality of the concept "off-topic" seems to rest on the belief that your paradigm offers a greater (deeper?) understanding of the Universe than the paradigm of empirically and mathematically derived models/relationship and directed study.

Having said that, I think we are having two different debates. To the best of my ability to follow, you are arguing that there can be analogies created between seemingly unconnected phenomenon. I am arguing that by any reasonable definition of a "successful conversation", "off-topic" is an exceedingly useful definition to have, and, more recently, and perhaps counter-productively, that it is also exceedingly useful in developing an accurate predictive model of the Universe.

In an attempt to bring this debate back to it's original point, could you please define what your overall claim is? That is, what are you trying to accomplish by "logically applying" off-topic things? This, I think, will greatly help bring this topic back to its original purpose.

[B]
So long as we are using the English language and have the common goal of communicating effectively, I must again request that you stick to commonly agreed-upon definitions of words, unless it has been specifically agreed upon that a word will be redefined for this debate. "Dark matter" has a meaning that is accepted by the world.

Though I have already rejected (and you have given me no reason to believe) that pointing to similarities between objects does not necessarily result in a meaningful analogy, I will attempt to address your analogies and show why they are flawed, to say nothing of what they may be trying to say. Incidentally, there is a certain amount of poetry in your analogies, but even so, I fail to see any truly deeper meaning in any of them.

0) The Universe and the human brain operate on different principles entirely. The human brain exists (insofar as it has an objective purpose) to give humans several tools to aide in reproduction. It follows the principles of "neural networks" abstractly and electromagnetism physically; it receives information, predicts reality, and solves problems. We have no reason to believe Universe has any capacity to reason. On the cosmic scale of stars that specifically mention, there is barely any interaction between stars and none of these interactions are re-weighted based on external stimulus. Stars operate on the principles of nuclear reactions (primarily fusion) and interact noticeably only through gravity. The "light" created by the universe and some metaphorical "light" from the brain is not a reason to connect the two. I see no reason whatsoever to point to any perceived poetic similarities between the two.

1) Genitalia pass genetic information between beings. That stars give off energy and black holes pull in matter is perhaps an abstract similarity that you are tying to men releasing sperm and the sperm being received by women. But this "similarity" is again all but meaningless and doesn't contribute to any discussion about either sex or stars.

2) I have never heard of an asteroid being calcium-rich, while may are made of iron. Asteroids are held together by gravity, kidney stones create no gravitational force to speak of. Kidney stones are within the bodies of sentient beings. This does not contribute to any discussion about kidney stones or asteroids.

3) Water is not conscious. "Consciousness" is a word that if rarely (if ever) well defined, but there is no even remotely reasonable definition that would classify water as conscious. It has no capacity to feel, emote, predict, or reason. Its physical property of reflectivity has essentially nothing to do with mental reflection. That both are describe as "flowing" are simply the use of a single word to describe radically different and unconnected phenomenon.

4 - 7) I had written arguments for these, but ran out of space; I think you can predict my arguments, but if you would like to hear them, please ask

8) "did I mention that the black hole is legitimately the female's genitalia and the star that explodes is legitimately the male's genitalia"

Yes you did mention it. You have yet to offer any substantial evidence or reasoning that such a bond exists. Following the principles of Bayesian statistics, if you are going to take every perceived similarity as evidence for this 'bond', you must also take every perceived difference as evidence against it. I'd list the dissimilarities, but I feel such a list is endless and unnecessary.

[C]

First and foremost, quoting scientists (or really anyone) for their philosophy isn't really a convincing argument. As easily as you can quote Nikola Tesla, I can quote Immanuel Kant: "Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life" and point out that your own "wisdom" is hardly organizing anything meaningfully. I can also point out that Tesla died in 1943 and could hardly know which direction "today's science" has come. Or that many physicists are very eager to unify the theories of physics into a "clearer", rather than "deeper" explanation of the universe. That being said, these quotes have little convincing power, and I doubt either of us are more convinced as a result of them.

If you claim that your paradigm is more effective than science's by any reasonable criteria, I'd be eager to hear your arguments or evidence for this. Incidentally, how have you "scarified everything to achieve [your] level of analysis"? I deny your statement that science is not "pragmatic"; in terms of practical understanding and benefit it has done far more than philosophy. I'd like to echo your sentiment: I in no way mean to belittle you, but by the standards of rationalism and empiricism, your analogies mean very little. They don't predict anything. They don't claim anything. At best they point to similarities, but even here their accuracy is questionable.

[D]
My paradigm, followed to the letter, suggests no commitment. A perfectly rational being weighs all criteria and probabilities and has a model of the universe that most accurately reflect these. I like to believe that whatever perceived bias I have towards modern science is well grounded in the reproducibility of its results and its accurate predictive power. I do not understand where your own confidence comes from.

I googled "Black Eye Hole", but am still confused. Many images are artists' renditionings of black holes; many are photos of eyes. Are you referring to the phenomenon in which massive objects bend light? Could you give me a direct link to the site/image?

[E]
I am not asking questions for the sake of my own confusion. It bears mentioning that you have currently used a total of one question mark in your posts, and it was a seeming rhetorical question ("did I mention... genitalia?") " you are hardly in a position to criticize my number of questions.

You say "always open yourself up and accept the possibility that what you're doing is not constructive and is in fact destructive" and then say that it is "silly to say that omni-reverance may not be good". Regardless, referencing "wise men" as a group continues to hold very little sway in my belief and, likely, the belief of anyone following this debate. I will continue to question under what criteria you are judging the legitimacy of a conversation, since this is what the purpose of this debate ultimately is. Only with a clear idea of what is "good" in a conversation can we come to a well-founded conclusion to the applicable-ness of "off topic". I have repeatedly told you it is in the purpose assigned by those having the conversation or, if you're not willing to accept that, in coming to understand the universe " something we might attempt to compare by comparing the accuracy of our universal models. Could you please take a stand and tell me what criteria you think is best, and which you might be willing to use so that this debate can be resolved?

[-]
Rest assured, I am doing nothing of the sort. You are claiming that two things are connected and are only offering examples of similarities. If whatever you have is "beyond anything [I have] ever experienced", but can be arrived at logically, please demonstrate the connection through logic rather than just the similarities.

If you do choose to claim one cannot arrive at it logically, this has interesting ramifications for this debate. Suddenly "Off-topic cannot logically be applied..." seems like a non-sensical statement (if logic itself cannot be applied to the universe). The debate then becomes me defending the use of logic to understand the universe.

[-]
I understand that you are using analogies to describe the universe. One might even go so far as to say I was "playing dumb", but since you seem to firmly believe there is deep philosophical meaning in your analogies, I must continue to ask: what is it? You are trying to take the claim "Aerogant can think about the universe poetically" and transform it into the conclusion "everyone is wrong for trying to have conversations that are reasonably confined to a specific topic", despite the fact your interpretation is very subjective. More than that, all you have done is claim your wisdom, quote "wise men", list your analogies, and criticize (somewhat hypocritically) my lack of questions.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

By observing each response, you can see how you write out your responses much larger than my own, instead of simplifying your thoughts - this is to say that I'm more intelligent than you are; I can simplify these complex thoughts much more than you can simplify what aren't even complex inquiries, just stubborn skepticism.

Calling similarities meaningless is exactly why you're so behind. There's not a single wise man that can call even the drawing of a child's meaningless because some guy can paint the heavens for everyone can see. By calling something meaningless, is your inadvertent way of telling yourself "I don't understand this, myself". You cannot make connections to what is otherwise the genius I spent years crafting and refining over the course of my childhood. I do far more thinking than you'll ever do yourself, so again, I would highly suggest for you to stop being so stubborn about your skepticism and start understanding how the brain can deflect its erroneous behaviors by projecting its own failures unto others, which complicates communication through and through.

"I have never heard an asteroid being...", this is exactly why you shouldn't be in this debate. You are skeptical towards me, while not doing any research yourself. You base everything off of your own experience - I shape my ideas around this Universe, not my heart like yourself; this is why I am on such a different level; I opened all windows and doors of this mental palace to let all the darkness and creatures in so I can face them once and for all.

Water contains amoeba - amoebas produces chemicals that allow us to feel "human". Therefore water is "human" - without water, there would not be amoebas, therefore there would not be "humans".

If you cannot experience the wonder that I have in realizing these correlations between how humans behave and the Universe behaves, while having great knowledge on things like water containing creatures that produce chemicals which allow us to be "human", or how our ability to observe this world today is the result of photo receptors being formed billions of years ago before stars were even born, then this is no longer my problem - it's your problem for being so behind on such grand knowledge.
evangambit

Con

You are not only oversimplifying the complicated and multi-faceted attribute of "intelligence", but also basing a claim on a extremely limited sample of my very specific ability to articulate and debate. You are claiming there is a positive correlation between an idea's simplicity and the intelligence required to comprehend it, while a vast majority of the population would suggest the opposite. I am aware that I am wordier than many people, but do not believe this is the result of having less intelligence than you. In any case, I really don't want to make this a debate about our intelligence " I am a strong believer that the ethos of the debaters should be held independent of what they are arguing.

I was not aware I had ever called similarities "meaningless" " only that the analogies you have put forth are not meaning from the perspective of understanding the Universe. Unless you can demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand the Universe better than I do, please do not say that I am ignorant. If I may be so bold, referring to yourself as a genius makes you sound very arrogant and does not lend significant credibility to your claims. If your claims have validity, let them stand for themselves.

Your claim of doing "far more thinking than [I'll] ever do [myself]" is, as you might imagine, rather disrespectful and seems ridiculously confident given how little we know of each other. I am not skeptical of the poetic nature of your analogies, only of your belief that your "wisdom" is truly significant, especially to the degree that you think you have license to claim that all of humankind stop having focused/deliberate conversations.

The vast majority of asteroids are not composed primarily of calcium. From my perspective, I seem to be drawing far more from reality and doing far more research than you are, so I respectfully request that you yourself research your own analogies; as I've already pointed out, all are quite significantly flawed and have only modest degrees of poetic correctness " you have given me no reason to believe that any are notable examples of a greater understanding of the Universe.

I agree that without water there would not be humans. I confess I am a little confused at the purpose of "amoebae" in your claim. Are you saying that the same chemicals critical to a neural activity that makes us feel distinct from animals rely on its production from amoebas? Or that chemicals produced by amoebas in general allow humans to exist? Either way, you take the claim that ((NOT water) implies (NOT human)) and claim it implies ((water) is equivalent to (human)). This is a flawed argument from a simple logic point of view. Not A -> not B does not mean A and B are equivalent. Even poetically I wonder at why one would try to make this connection.

I accept there are similarities between how humans behave and phenomenon, merely that they are generally not helpful in understanding the Universe. More specifically, such correlations do not offer a convincing arguments for your original claim (that "off-topic" cannot be logically applied). I have experience awe at the Universe, but did not think my personal feelings implied that I had some greater understanding than the rest of humanity, nor did I think such a feeling granted me license to claim authority over other's conversations.

What distinguishes true statements from false statements?
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

You should not be proud of complicating what you're wanting to express, as there are plenty of ways to take complicated ideas, apply them to simple objects, in order to explain complex ideas with images instead of words. A picture can say a thousand words - a word can create a thousand worlds. It's best to use as little words as possible; you wouldn't want to barrage someone with worlds, now would you?

I am your teacher, not you. This is no longer about me - this is about your lack of knowledge towards the Universe; how it behaves; how it emerged; how it reflects itself; how it experiences itself. You must understand the basic principles of reality before you attempt at challenging such grand ideas of mine. I told you specifically that this discussion is about the grand Universe - you should have known what you were getting yourself into when you accepted this debate. Now you must take full responsibility for your own incapability of recognizing the invaluable information I share - how you must look into a mirror and say to yourself, "wow, I am really ignorant. how can I tell this genius that they are wrong, when I can't even make something out of idea that this Universe that surrounds me is indeed much more than I previously made of it! the bee and electron analogy was an amazing way to describe the self-similarity, but for some reason I just couldn't handle the knowledge, so I was unable to sit down and think about how its true!"

After all the things I have done to achieve this level of thinking, just so I can repeatedly be distracted by the ignorant and stupidity of my own species, I have decided to become a ruthless teacher, just like the ruthless teacher in my dreams that haunted me until I faced my subconscious. I tried to be nice and allow others to teach themselves, but all of you are just so behind, that you need to be pushed out of your comfort zone. It baffles me how high I am and how low everyone else is. People can't even reason with basic phrases or basic questions - I am so tired of seeing the same basic arguments in every site, every person's argument - because people are just that far behind in understand what truly, truly is. Call me arrogant all you may like - I am anything but. All the things I do is based entirely on the sole purpose of not putting up with other people's arrogance any longer. When I am nice, people abuse me. When I don't make it about them, they make it about me. When I say enough is enough, nobody screws with me. Got it? I hope you do, because I'm not going to explain myself again. You already made me explain these simple ideas a thousand times already because you just can't seem to fathom that it's all you - you're not intelligent enough; you have way too much to learn before you can even scratch the surface of the ideology I spent years building, by cosmically reverse-engineering every single aspect of this god forsaken world: Subconscious, Conscious, Psychopathy, Humanity, Ego, Pride, Passion, Integrity, Intuition, Fear, Hunger, Anger, Insanity, Color, Personality, Vibration, Existence, Faculty, Depression, Curiosity, Thrive, Dream, Emotion, Reaction, Identity, Distinction, Paradigm, Projection, Interaction, Confusion, Holism and Nihilism. I don't need you to tell me anything - I already know it all. Ask questions, that's when I come to my own answers or make out an answer from previous experiences and observations. You arguing for an answer in a philosophical debate, because you cannot comprehend the genius ideas I am providing is the most time-wasting, disrespectful, frustrating pain-staking BS in the entire world, but I put up with you because I don't sit here and complain about the stress my own species puts me through because unlike you, I have the integrity and the sheer passion to burn and cut through every last one of this nightmare once and for all.

There are two main types of asteroids: stoney and iron. The stoney asteroid contains 8% calcium - this is an asteroid, are you that dense? Please, tell me how you cannot use your brain to realize that the asteroid is many times bigger than our kidney, so that 8% is far more in the kidney than on the asteroid - the point is, the iron asteroid does not contain any calcium, while the stoney one does. The stoney one contains iron deficiency, hence why it is correlative to how kidney stones exist - not to mention that kidney stones look like mini asteroids. Are you really that dense? Please tell me, so I don't have to waste the energy of opening these heavy doors to my existential archive for you. I'm so tired of explaining myself over and over and over again because you are all idiots that expect an answer, when you know not even 0.1% of what you are challenging in the first place! You can't even cross-simulate and contract the sizes between the examples because you don't know how to use your brain at the level I can. Therefore ask questions; stop trying to argue what you don't understand. Ask questions so maybe I can answer you instead of answering your stupidity, just so it can deflect it all and go back on another wild tangent because stupidity is the epitome of circular-logic - it simply cannot comprehend that it, itself, is stupid. Accept that you don't know enough, as you clearly don't, instead of saying "well, it doesn't make sense to me, therefore it must be more than likely wrong". Just stop making a fool out of yourself, and I won't have to respond to you like you are one.

Yes, the chemicals of the human body require amoebas... Amoebas live inside of our body right now... The "human" is a characteristic, which is based on chemicals, which is based on amoebas. Why is everyone in this world so colloquially illiterate? The dictionary should have its name changed to distinctionary, as I am ever so worn out from all the word-trappers that don't even understand that they are word-trapping themselves by not thinking about the context of the word which they are using to communicate what little they understood in the first place.

You have admitted repeatedly that you're confused and do not know how to take a simple statement and apply sense to it because you lack the blue prints to understand this world as you haven't learned how to use your brain properly. All you manage to do, is encourage your ignorance, make my life a living hell, and allow this entire world to continue being over-run by psychopaths, tyrants, politicians and brain-dead people. As you are not using your brain - you are using a bloody book written by brain-dead distinction-making fools to argue semantics, when there are so much truth and wisdom behind the nonsensical words we use, hence why the human brain can create word-play, poetry and turn these boring words into something that is brilliant. What part of you cannot see there's a reason why bees behave like electrons - become angry like electrons - become frenzied like electrons - are yellow like electrons... Just because electrons do not make electron hives does not mean that suddenly they are not based on a grand design called "self-similarity" - the same way just because one ethnicity can do something better than the other ethnicity, does not mean we are different either. It's that simple - is that so hard for you to understand!?

What distinguishes true statements from false statements? Simple. There is one Universe - there is countless denominations that failed to locate that one Universe. Want another tip? Truth does not circle itself - it expands; lies encircle themselves. Here's another tip... Truth is the Universe, in that when you say one thing, it will always have a shadow right behind it like the moon and the sun; the lie, however, will not have any contrast behind it. Which is why I know when someone is resorting to an absolution rather than a resolution - they create absolution, but for some reason this absolution is the "ultimate answer", yet the person making it does not include anything else after it - why? It's because the lie does not lead to anything - the truth tries to lead to something. Remember that, and maybe you won't have to deal with your own ignorance for long, as you seem like you're willing to face me - show me that you are, and great things will come to you, just like when I faced this Universe and the true nature of everything, everything came to me.
evangambit

Con

You are not only oversimplifying the complicated and multi-faceted attribute of "intelligence", but also basing a claim on a extremely limited sample of my very specific ability to articulate and debate. You are claiming there is a positive correlation between an idea's simplicity and the intelligence required to comprehend it, while a vast majority of the population would suggest the opposite. I am aware that I am wordier than many people, but do not believe this is the result of having less intelligence than you. In any case, I really don't want to make this a debate about our intelligence " I am a strong believer that the ethos of the debaters should be held independent of what they are arguing.

I was not aware I had ever called similarities "meaningless" " only that the analogies you have put forth are not meaning from the perspective of understanding the Universe. Unless you can demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand the Universe better than I do, please do not say that I am ignorant. If I may be so bold, referring to yourself as a genius makes you sound very arrogant and does not lend significant credibility to your claims. If your claims have validity, let them stand for themselves.

Your claim of doing "far more thinking than [I'll] ever do [myself]" is, as you might imagine, rather disrespectful and seems ridiculously confident given how little we know of each other. I am not skeptical of the poetic nature of your analogies, only of your belief that your "wisdom" is truly significant, especially to the degree that you think you have license to claim that all of humankind stop having focused/deliberate conversations.

The vast majority of asteroids are not composed primarily of calcium. From my perspective, I seem to be drawing far more from reality and doing far more research than you are, so I respectfully request that you yourself research your own analogies; as I've already pointed out, all are quite significantly flawed and have only modest degrees of poetic correctness " you have given me no reason to believe that any are notable examples of a greater understanding of the Universe.

I agree that without water there would not be humans. I confess I am a little confused at the purpose of "amoebae" in your claim. Are you saying that the same chemicals critical to a neural activity that makes us feel distinct from animals rely on its production from amoebas? Or that chemicals produced by amoebas in general allow humans to exist? Either way, you take the claim that ((NOT water) implies (NOT human)) and claim it implies ((water) is equivalent to (human)). This is a flawed argument from a simple logic point of view. Not A -> not B does not mean A and B are equivalent. Even poetically I wonder at why one would try to make this connection.

I accept there are similarities between how humans behave and phenomenon, merely that they are generally not helpful in understanding the Universe. More specifically, such correlations do not offer a convincing arguments for your original claim (that "off-topic" cannot be logically applied). I have experience awe at the Universe, but did not think my personal feelings implied that I had some greater understanding than the rest of humanity, nor did I think such a feeling granted me license to claim authority over other's conversations.

What distinguishes true statements from false statements?

I never said that one should complicate what one wants to express, I am only rejecting your (disrespectful) claim that the length of a response correlates negatively with intelligence.

You say that "this is no longer about [you]" yet it seems the entirety of your argument is based on trying to build your ethos as a "wise man" and a "genius". I am glad you are willing to leave this behind.

You bee-electron analogy was not an amazing way to describe either. Yes, you did indeed say this discussion was about the "grand universe", though I must confess some confusion, because you also claimed it was about whether "off topic" could be logically applied, and you have made no arguments for that. I have (I'd say you were off topic, but that seems a bit like begging the question). Do you understand the basics of the current model of electrons? If so, then you should be able to understand just how tentative your connection between the two is.

Alas, would that we could have left your ethos-based arguments behind us. Let us agree on one thing: you brought your ethos into this debate, against my protestations that it was irrelevant. Nobody has talked about you more than yourself. I waited until you were directly insulting me before I put up a tentative defense. Do not make the mistake of believing you are the slighted or wronged party.

I do sincerely hope you don not believe that I have abused you.

You have yet to make any argument about why your ideas are significant in any way, let alone to the extent that might tie into the original topic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that none of your arguments have been directly aimed at the original topic of this debate. If you just wanted a platform to express your genius, this is not the correct site for you.

"[You] don't sit here and complain about the stress my own species puts me through" comes through as a bit false, especially after you complained about being "so tired of seeing the same basic arguments in every site, every person's argument - because people are just that far behind in understand what truly, truly is".

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that "are you that dense" is asking for a comparison of the density of the asteroid and me, because I am certain that someone as wise as you would not sink so low as to continue launching personal attacks at me. No, I am not as dense as an asteroid. Again, you insist that vague similarities between asteroids and kidney stones suggests they are usefully conceived of as one and the same. Again, you have yet to make any argument for this.

Incidentally, I believe your figure of 8% is a little off (I think it is closer to 1%; I'd post a source, but that is against your rules for this debate).

Please stop insulting me.

Thank you for clarifying the place of amoebae in your analogy. I maintain it is false for the same reason used above (that implication does not mean congruency), which you have not refuted. Again, that they are poetically linked is a fairly arbitrary claim and so doesn't seem a valid argument that "off topic" is illogical.

Okay. I'm going to try to explain a basic understanding of electrons. They are both particles and waves and we cannot pin down their precise location (have you read about quantum physics? it is fascinating). They do not have emotions. They cannot be frenzied. To apply the concept of color to electrons is a bit ridiculous. Light is made when electrons change energy levels. An electron may change from one level to another and release red light, then go between two different levels and release blue light, and then another interval and release ultraviolet light. Every similarity you pointed to is not true.

The similarities between different ethnicities is your best analogy thus far. It has meaningful implications in reality. It is still not an argument that "off-topic cannot logically apply" in this universe.

Your answer to my request for a definition for truth, but the most concrete thing I could pull from it was "Truth is the Universe", yet your own analogies have been shown to be extraordinary flawed.

In conclusion:

You have made no meaningful arguments regarding the original reason for this debate. No analogy is perfect, but yours seem so detached from our understanding of the universe that their truths are not self-evident, and you have not made any concrete arguments, explanations, or even criteria by which they might be deemed meaningful. Furthermore, even if proven, you must demonstrate that these analogies lead us to conclude that "off topic" cannot be applied. I have made arguments for the benefits of "off topic" (remember back to "successful conversation" and "greater understanding" and "predictive power").

In conclusion (and being repetitive):

The successfulness of a conversation is determined by the goals those participating have for it. If people desire a conversation that leads to in-depth, meaningful discussion, they must limit the range of their topic. No human can practically apply anything to anything else and expect a productive conversation.

If you, reader, believe I have won and that "off topic" is valid, then I can say this:
I do apologize that much of this debate has been off topic, but I could not request it on topic without begging the question.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KurtGodel 2 years ago
KurtGodel
Thank you very much! I eagerly await your response.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I will when I have time, as I know the difference between a lie and life.
Posted by KurtGodel 2 years ago
KurtGodel
Um - I guess the reason for clicking on the lick is that I feel that the contents of the link are relevant to the debate and I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint - though I understand if you do not feel that this reason is a strong enough justification.

I can understand your concern that the link contains something malicious, but I'm not sure how to go about proving that it is safe. Personally, I use a browser add-on called Web Of Trust to help determine whether a website is safe to view. Web of Trust rates websites based on user-reviews, while this is not, of course, perfect, it should indicate that link is less (or more) likely to contain malicious activity.

It is, however, probably irrational for me to ask you to download WOT merely to check the safety of a single link and this would also require you to trust WOT. That said, because Google makes results with links from reputable sites move higher in its search results, you may feel satisfied if I say that if you type "The Virtue of Narrowness" into Google, one of the first results will be the same webpage I linked. I hope you find this convincing to trust my intentions.

In any case, the decision is, of course, your own, and I will respect whatever decision you make. I have done my best to convince you of the link's safety, but I can fully understand if you decide against viewing it.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You'd have to give me an in-depth reason why I should click on a foreign link that may or may nor contain malicious activity or unambitious satire.
Posted by KurtGodel 2 years ago
KurtGodel
Aerogant, if you have the time, could you please tell me what you think about this webpage: http://lesswrong.com....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
AerogantevangambitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rambling on and on
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
AerogantevangambitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Goodness gracious. Pro's argument was long, and rambling, and failed to address Con's points, namely, that if a topic is limited in scope, "off-topic" is useful as a descriptor. Most of Pro's arguments that were actually on the topic, at best, defended off-topic as a good thing. Which is nice--but doesn't establish that off-topic "cannot" apply. This debate was a long slog to read, for not much payoff. I urge Pro and, to a lesser extent, Con, to look hard at the resolution and focus on the topic at hand--something, of course, that Pro would object to. But the purpose of this debate IS the resolution. His "off-topic" stuff might well be interesting, and I'm certainly not saying there's no value in it. But there's no POINT value in it, in terms of scoring. Arguments to Con. Incidentally, Con, you can use tags to italicize text. It doesn't work in comments, so I can tell you what the tags would be. You can also use rich text, or the buttons, but to do it manually: Use TEXT.