Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

We Must Be Greater Than Ourselves

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

You managed to make it more complex than anthony. lol
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 7:24:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

You managed to make it more complex than anthony. lol

Lol maybe you're right. If you take an intro calculus course, it will become simple. Either way, your version was nice and clear.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 5:26:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 5:31:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Yes, we necessarily interact with and are shaped by our environment. Profound observation, Anthony.

Thank you.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 9:44:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

You may think it's trivial but, logically, it's a paradox. Saying a person is greater than oneself is a contradiction, in terms. How can anything be greater than itself? For, to say a person is limited to oneself is to say he, or she, has an effect that is defined by the limits of one's self and does not transcend his, or her, parameters.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 9:50:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 9:44:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

You may think it's trivial but, logically, it's a paradox. Saying a person is greater than oneself is a contradiction, in terms. How can anything be greater than itself? For, to say a person is limited to oneself is to say he, or she, has an effect that is defined by the limits of one's self and does not transcend his, or her, parameters.

Yes. I think saying that a person is greater than oneself is simply using language imprecisely. Like I said, you are not describing a person being greater than their self. Instead, you are describing the fact that any variable is more complex over a period of change than it is at some specific and discrete instance. Once it is expressed more precisely, it becomes immediately identifiable as trivial.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:36:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes. I think saying that a person is greater than oneself is simply using language imprecisely. Like I said, you are not describing a person being greater than their self. Instead, you are describing the fact that any variable is more complex over a period of change than it is at some specific and discrete instance. Once it is expressed more precisely, it becomes immediately identifiable as trivial.

I agree. The complexity of anything over time is indeed greater than at any specific moment in its history; that's because change is dynamic.

However, the semantics I used to describe this, I don't believe is imprecise. A phenomenal being is indeed greater than itself. For one thing, it is dynamic and not merely static. At no point in its history can you give an exhaustive definition of its content. You may define it as such, merely, for reference but it is greater than the terms you apply.

This is in no way trivial; for you to say so makes the phenomenal world of little significance.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 7:36:28 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes. I think saying that a person is greater than oneself is simply using language imprecisely. Like I said, you are not describing a person being greater than their self. Instead, you are describing the fact that any variable is more complex over a period of change than it is at some specific and discrete instance. Once it is expressed more precisely, it becomes immediately identifiable as trivial.

I agree. The complexity of anything over time is indeed greater than at any specific moment in its history; that's because change is dynamic.

However, the semantics I used to describe this, I don't believe is imprecise. A phenomenal being is indeed greater than itself. For one thing, it is dynamic and not merely static. At no point in its history can you give an exhaustive definition of its content. You may define it as such, merely, for reference but it is greater than the terms you apply.

This is in no way trivial; for you to say so makes the phenomenal world of little significance.

Two points.

1) If you understand that the complexity of any dynamic thing over time is greater than its complexity at a given moment, then why do you not apply this to people? You literally said that a being is greater than itself because it is dynamic (and for some reason added that it was also not static).

2). You're comparing one definition of self (self at once instance) to another definition of self (self over time) and then concluding that self > self. You don't need to have an exhaustive definition of the content of that self in order to see the mistake here. The reason I say this is imprecise use of language still stands.

If a being is greater than itself, then perhaps the greater version is the self (or closer to), and the lesser version is a subset of that self.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 8:59:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Two points.

1) If you understand that the complexity of any dynamic thing over time is greater than its complexity at a given moment, then why do you not apply this to people? You literally said that a being is greater than itself because it is dynamic (and for some reason added that it was also not static).

I apply this to all phenomena, and I believe people are phenomenal beings.

No. I said a thing was not merely static.

2). You're comparing one definition of self (self at once instance) to another definition of self (self over time) and then concluding that self > self. You don't need to have an exhaustive definition of the content of that self in order to see the mistake here. The reason I say this is imprecise use of language still stands.

Self has many meanings, and variable values, because it is a dynamic. As a phenomenon, no given defining moment in its history is greater than it is in its totality.

If a being is greater than itself, then perhaps the greater version is the self (or closer to), and the lesser version is a subset of that self.

Self is defined by various values; meaning is not only objective but also subjective. A lesser self may be known in one instance as a greater self may be known in another. The value an appraiser may give at any particular moment in time only has significance to the appraiser in as much as it has relevance to the appraiser. We can argue over the meaning of something, and in fact we often do, but it is for this precise reason meaning, or value, is not completely fixed but is also dynamic in nature.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 9:09:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 8:59:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Two points.

1) If you understand that the complexity of any dynamic thing over time is greater than its complexity at a given moment, then why do you not apply this to people? You literally said that a being is greater than itself because it is dynamic (and for some reason added that it was also not static).

I apply this to all phenomena, and I believe people are phenomenal beings.


Then I take it that you retract your contradictory statement in your last post.

No. I said a thing was not merely static.

Actually, I was poking fun at this new example of sloppy wording. It's dynamic AND not merely static, right? Similarly, I'm biologically male, AND I'm not not a male. Don't forget that second part =)


2). You're comparing one definition of self (self at once instance) to another definition of self (self over time) and then concluding that self > self. You don't need to have an exhaustive definition of the content of that self in order to see the mistake here. The reason I say this is imprecise use of language still stands.

Self has many meanings, and variable values, because it is a dynamic. As a phenomenon, no given defining moment in its history is greater than it is in its totality.

Aside from some imprecise usage of terms, this was my refutation of your original post. This is why your saying that the self is greater than the self is really just using a double-meaning for "self".


If a being is greater than itself, then perhaps the greater version is the self (or closer to), and the lesser version is a subset of that self.

Self is defined by various values; meaning is not only objective but also subjective. A lesser self may be known in one instance as a greater self may be known in another. The value an appraiser may give at any particular moment in time only has significance to the appraiser in as much as it has relevance to the appraiser. We can argue over the meaning of something, and in fact we often do, but it is for this precise reason meaning, or value, is not completely fixed but is also dynamic in nature.

We've already established it is dynamic. You're confirming that a being cannot actually be greater than themselves, but that their objective and subjective "value" can be greater or lesser at different time points, and that their total value or complexity over time is greater than in an instance. This is exactly what I am saying, and why your original statement is just imprecise use of language.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 1:00:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I apply this to all phenomena, and I believe people are phenomenal beings.

Then I take it that you retract your contradictory statement in your last post.

No. I said a thing was not merely static.

Actually, I was poking fun at this new example of sloppy wording. It's dynamic AND not merely static, right? Similarly, I'm biologically male, AND I'm not not a male. Don't forget that second part =)

Self has many meanings, and variable values, because it is a dynamic. As a phenomenon, no given defining moment in its history is greater than it is in its totality.

Aside from some imprecise usage of terms, this was my refutation of your original post. This is why your saying that the self is greater than the self is really just using a double-meaning for "self".

Self does not have a double meaning; it has a multiplicity of meanings.

Self is defined by various values; meaning is not only objective but also subjective. A lesser self may be known in one instance as a greater self may be known in another. The value an appraiser may give at any particular moment in time only has significance to the appraiser in as much as it has relevance to the appraiser. We can argue over the meaning of something, and in fact we often do, but it is for this precise reason meaning, or value, is not completely fixed but is also dynamic in nature.

We've already established it is dynamic. You're confirming that a being cannot actually be greater than themselves, but that their objective and subjective "value" can be greater or lesser
at different time points, and that their total value or complexity over time is greater than in an instance. This is exactly what I am saying, and why your original statement is just imprecise use of language.

No. My argument is a phenomenal being must indeed be greater than itself because it does not exist apart from its effect on the world. Agency, for me, goes beyond the agent; it links the thing acting to the thing receiving the action; in other words, if the effect, or product, of the action does not exist, then, neither does the cause, or producer of the action.

In saying we must be greater than ourselves, I am in effect saying instead of merely allowing ourselves to be the product of another's actions, we too must act if we are to affect our world. In influencing our world, we are exceeding our boundaries, we are making ourselves of greater significance.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:00:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I apply this to all phenomena, and I believe people are phenomenal beings.


Then I take it that you retract your contradictory statement in your last post.

No. I said a thing was not merely static.

Actually, I was poking fun at this new example of sloppy wording. It's dynamic AND not merely static, right? Similarly, I'm biologically male, AND I'm not not a male. Don't forget that second part =)

Self has many meanings, and variable values, because it is a dynamic. As a phenomenon, no given defining moment in its history is greater than it is in its totality.

Aside from some imprecise usage of terms, this was my refutation of your original post. This is why your saying that the self is greater than the self is really just using a double-meaning for "self".

Self does not have a double meaning; it has a multiplicity of meanings.

I don't think you understood the point. I'm saying that your false equivocation is one of the reasons your argument falls flat.


Self is defined by various values; meaning is not only objective but also subjective. A lesser self may be known in one instance as a greater self may be known in another. The value an appraiser may give at any particular moment in time only has significance to the appraiser in as much as it has relevance to the appraiser. We can argue over the meaning of something, and in fact we often do, but it is for this precise reason meaning, or value, is not completely fixed but is also dynamic in nature.

We've already established it is dynamic. You're confirming that a being cannot actually be greater than themselves, but that their objective and subjective "value" can be greater or lesser
at different time points, and that their total value or complexity over time is greater than in an instance. This is exactly what I am saying, and why your original statement is just imprecise use of language.

No. My argument is a phenomenal being must indeed be greater than itself because it does not exist apart from its effect on the world. Agency, for me, goes beyond the agent; it links the thing acting to the thing receiving the action; in other words, if the effect, or product, of the action does not exist, then, neither does the cause, or producer of the action.

In saying we must be greater than ourselves, I am in effect saying instead of merely allowing ourselves to be the product of another's actions, we too must act if we are to affect our world. In influencing our world, we are exceeding our boundaries, we are making ourselves of greater significance.

Again, you're defining "self" as the individual in the first part, and then "self" as the individual plus their total interactions in the second part.

Do you also want to argue that a rock is greater than tiself because it does not exist apart from its "effect" (you mean affect) on the world? Do you also want to argue that A > A because B exists in the same space as A?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again, you're defining "self" as the individual in the first part, and then "self" as the individual plus their total interactions in the second part.

Do you also want to argue that a rock is greater than tiself because it does not exist apart from its "effect" (you mean affect) on the world? Do you also want to argue that A > A because B exists in the same space as A?

No. I want to argue the value of (A) is relative. (A) is merely a symbol, a symbol that varies in meaning. Your argument is: if (A) has a different value, it is no longer (A).
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:44:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*

What's MSOE?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:46:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:13:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Again, you're defining "self" as the individual in the first part, and then "self" as the individual plus their total interactions in the second part.

Do you also want to argue that a rock is greater than tiself because it does not exist apart from its "effect" (you mean affect) on the world? Do you also want to argue that A > A because B exists in the same space as A?

No. I want to argue the value of (A) is relative. (A) is merely a symbol, a symbol that varies in meaning. Your argument is: if (A) has a different value, it is no longer (A).

What I'm saying is that your argument applies to rocks and symbols in formal logic. I'm also saying that A =/ F(A), and that you're still making a false equivocation.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:17:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I'm saying is that your argument applies to rocks and symbols in formal logic. I'm also saying that A =/ F(A), and that you're still making a false equivocation.

If there were no self, or self as distinguished from its environment, then, there is nothing whereby to interact. If self did not interact with its environment, then, it has no relationship with its environment and is therefore not relative to its environment and thusly stands alone. In other words, there would be no self and its environment of which to speak. Self must be set apart from its environment in order for there to be an interaction between it and its environment; in other words, the self must be distinguishable from its environment or there would be no self of which to speak. Self must interact with its environment or there is no interaction between the self and its environment.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:16:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:44:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*

What's MSOE?

Milwaukee school of engineering
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:17:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
What I'm saying is that your argument applies to rocks and symbols in formal logic. I'm also saying that A =/ F(A), and that you're still making a false equivocation.

If there were no self, or self as distinguished from its environment, then, there is nothing whereby to interact. If self did not interact with its environment, then, it has no relationship with its environment and is therefore not relative to its environment and thusly stands alone. In other words, there would be no self and its environment of which to speak. Self must be set apart from its environment in order for there to be an interaction between it and its environment; in other words, the self must be distinguishable from its environment or there would be no self of which to speak. Self must interact with its environment or there is no interaction between the self and its environment.

You haven't added anything new at all.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:16:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:44:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*

What's MSOE?

Milwaukee school of engineering

So it's in the US, I guess? I don't really know what the top engineering schools in the US are: MIT, CalTech, Stanford?

Actually, here's a list, but I don't know how objective it is: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...

And actually those are for graduate departments.

But anyway, what kinds of "math" courses are you taking? I put math in quotes because most engineering schools don't teach math, just how to calculate things. But still, I'm curious =)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 10:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 6:20:13 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:17:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
What I'm saying is that your argument applies to rocks and symbols in formal logic. I'm also saying that A =/ F(A), and that you're still making a false equivocation.

If there were no self, or self as distinguished from its environment, then, there is nothing whereby to interact. If self did not interact with its environment, then, it has no relationship with its environment and is therefore not relative to its environment and thusly stands alone. In other words, there would be no self and its environment of which to speak. Self must be set apart from its environment in order for there to be an interaction between it and its environment; in other words, the self must be distinguishable from its environment or there would be no self of which to speak. Self must interact with its environment or there is no interaction between the self and its environment.

You haven't added anything new at all.

Ok.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:12:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 6:23:15 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:16:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:44:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*

What's MSOE?

Milwaukee school of engineering

So it's in the US, I guess? I don't really know what the top engineering schools in the US are: MIT, CalTech, Stanford?

Actually, here's a list, but I don't know how objective it is: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...

And actually those are for graduate departments.

But anyway, what kinds of "math" courses are you taking? I put math in quotes because most engineering schools don't teach math, just how to calculate things. But still, I'm curious =)

Yeah, it's in the US. I dunno, they always talk about how awesome they are, and they do have a 95% job placement, but I don't think they're quite as good as they make themselves out to be.

I have to take calc 1 - 4, as well as differential equations and some statistics class...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 12:12:28 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 6:23:15 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:16:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:44:00 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:12:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:03:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 11:24:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:46:50 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:44:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:21:35 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:26:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
One thing that has lately astonished me is the idea of change. Change requires the ability to become something you're not.

However, we could say that which we change into has always been apart of who we are, it was merely laying dormant, inactive, only to be activated at a later date.

Yet, even though this is partly true, it's not completely true. For, we do develop as a result of genetic expression but the very genes that create our phenotypes are merely activated by chemicals found in our environments. Therefore, that which makes us complete is something other than ourselves. In order to be complete or to develop to completion, we must transcend ourselves and become that which we are not. We are finite beings; yet, we must transcend our finitude to become something even greater. We must not see meaning as only static but also dynamic. The defining of our selves is only limited by death. If we are to remain vital, we must define ourselves in ways that are beyond our present magnitude. We must use meaning that is unknown to us. We must be able to see beyond our horizons.

This would seem to come fairly directly from the fact that the integral over a positive definite function is always greater than it's value at any point. In this case, the complexity of a person's change in states over time is greater than the complexity of their state at a given moment in time. Isn't this very trivial?

dat math tho

Gotta love even introductory calculus. I still use it almost every day, and it allows me to think more clearly about many things.

yup. I'm in engineering school so I'm doing a sh*tload of math and stuff.

Awesome =) Engineering is great, and I'm excited for you.

Is this a university program? What year are you in?

I'm a mechanical engineering freshman at MSOE. The ME department here is supposedly in the top ten in the country... *shrugs*

What's MSOE?

Milwaukee school of engineering

So it's in the US, I guess? I don't really know what the top engineering schools in the US are: MIT, CalTech, Stanford?

Actually, here's a list, but I don't know how objective it is: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...

And actually those are for graduate departments.

But anyway, what kinds of "math" courses are you taking? I put math in quotes because most engineering schools don't teach math, just how to calculate things. But still, I'm curious =)

Yeah, it's in the US. I dunno, they always talk about how awesome they are, and they do have a 95% job placement, but I don't think they're quite as good as they make themselves out to be.

I have to take calc 1 - 4, as well as differential equations and some statistics class...

Nice. Are you a new student, or have you taken a few of the calcs already? I'm curious were you are. I TA'ed calc 1 and 2 a couple of times a few years back, as well as stats once.

I'm also curious: do you get a B.Sc. at the end, or a B.Eng?