Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

RFD for Intelligent Creator Debate

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 6:10:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This is an RFD for the debate between Wylted and tejretics given here: http://www.debate.org...

Honestly, this debate looked pretty interesting from the outset. Pro brought a rather different view of what constituted an intelligent creator to the debate, and this was shaping up to be something a little different from the usual god vs. no god debate.

However, what ends up happening here is never quite as interesting as that opening suggested it could have been. The reason for that is what decides this debate, and hopefully that will become clear as I go through this RFD.

So, let's start with Pro's case.

It really is intriguing, and the trilemma tells me a lot about how it works, though I think more background on what Pro was talking about (namely, what an ancestor simulation actually is) could have helped Pro quite a bit here. In fact, from how I read it, that clarification could have made this argument simpler to accept and avoided one of the assumptions Con presented (while, admittedly, creating another problem, but that's a different story).

Admittedly, when I read things like this, I usually have a hard time treating them as dilemmas and more as chotomies. It always seems like they're restricting the mindset of the person reading, essentially saying that there are only a few possible ways the world could go, and then explaining why some of them are wrong in order to eliminate other options. Pro's argument doesn't really get strong for me until he starts supporting the third possibility (i.e. the one he needs to uphold to win this debate), particularly because the analysis he gives for why 1 and 2 are extremely unlikely just doesn't make much sense to me.

"1.The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;"

This one gets the least attention from Pro, and frankly I don't know why. Getting greater abilities with our technology doesn't make us post-human, so all the points on the technological limitations of computation are doing nothing to show why this possibility is so unlikely. Maybe I just read this wrong, but I never saw an argument that said "once we step over this technological hurdle, we will be post-human," nor did I ever see a point about what a post-human really is. I'm given this idea that such a civilization would have great resources at their disposal, but that doesn't tell me what that civilization actually is and what characterizes it as post-human. Maybe it's the capacity to build an ancestor simulation, but then why is that technological advance suddenly so much more important than any other? Why is that what moves us beyond our humanity?

The closest I get to an argument against this possibility is from the quote at the top of Pro's case, which says that "we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity." However, I don't see why I should reject this possibility on that basis that we will eventually go extinct. Without a clear idea of when we make the transition, I see no reason to believe that we won't go extinct before we reach that point.

"2.The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;"

Pro spends more time here, and that's to his benefit. He examines the various motivations for why post-humans would take the action of creating an ancestor simulation, and it all sounds rather convincing. Human nature does usually stimulate us to learn more about a given situation, and there is certainly a desire based on personal wealth, so I see where you're going with this.

However, even this isn't altogether clear. By this point, we're not talking about human motivations. We're talking about post-human motivations, and as I have no clear idea of how a post-human is differentiated from a human, I can't be sure that they would have the same set of motivations. Moreover, even if they have these motivations, it's a different story when you're subjecting non-consenting human beings to your studies. I get that that argument could be made quite easily " all you have to do is show that the potential ethical pitfalls wouldn't stop people from engaging in the creation of an ancestor simulation " but that reasoning should have appeared in here somewhere. There's a big difference between playing god in Sim City and playing god with actual people.

"3.The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one."

As I said above, this is the most convincing aspect of Pro's case. Part of the reason is it's just better explained, and I'll get to that in more detail shortly. The main reason, however, is that I don't feel that the first 2 possibilities accurately represent all other possibilities. Pro actually seems to acknowledge this, spending quite a bit of time explaining why an ancestor simulation is, itself, likely to eventually be possible. So in my mind, this is a trichotomy, one with quite a few faults.

That being said, there are some good points here. Pro presents a number of listed reasons why we should believe we're in a simulated universe, and that gets me thinking about it. I actually think it's mainly to Pro's detriment that he didn't spend more time on these 4 points, mainly because the way they're listed here focuses on just getting out the basics without examining the evidence that each of these actually provide. Often, the focus seems to be more on appeals to authority, which is what Con exploits in response to several of them.

What Pro does spend time on is more of a waste, unfortunately. He tells me about stacked simulations, but this doesn't prove anything. All it does is discuss yet another possibility, making the capacity for a simulation to simulate far more people and objects seem that much more probable. That would be fine if this was under another point, but Pro was trying to prove the third possibility true here, and this did not manage that. I don't see why "It's not even worth considering the fact we're not simulated seeing as how the likelihood of that is so small" because this evidence doesn't showcase that likelihood.

Con's case mainly just involves knocking these arguments down, introducing doubt and turning what Pro frames as probability into possibility, thereby dramatically reducing the likelihood. Establishing the burdens was a good place to start, and it's pretty clear that Pro misunderstood this analysis.

Con presents multiple reasons I find persuasive.

The first is the link between the third possibility, which Pro is supporting, and the resolution. This is a really important point because it tells me that, even if I'm buying Pro's entire argument, I'm still forced to vote Con on the basis that he hasn't established why an intelligent creator for the computer-created simulation is probable.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The second attacks the idea that a post-human civilization exists, and this is where I feel that the lack of clarification of what a post-human is and what an ancestor simulation does the most harm to Pro. Con's basically forcing Pro to show that such a civilization exists in status quo. My impression was that Pro's argument didn't require this, but rather that Pro was saying that there will be some future civilization that's very advanced that would put us into the simulation in the present. Pro never clarifies this, and so I have to buy Con's view that a post-human civilization must exist now, which Pro never supports.

I don't think Pro was presuming the principle of indifference with all of his arguments, but he certainly appears to be doing that with certain points. As such, the idea that the principle of indifference actually functions against those points makes sense to me.

Con also does a solid job attacking the assumptions made by Bostrom, and thus how Pro's own assumption that Bostrom's points stand strongly without his support is problematic. The Chinese room argument is probably the most important piece of this, considering that it challenges the basic assumption that we will ever be able to come up with such a massive slew of AIs as Pro's case presupposes. The need to ignore gravity simulation is also a potent argument.

The remainder of Con's responses basically just knocks down the four points that Pro states are indicators of a simulated reality, which as I explained above were never well supported to begin with. Con manages to knock these down or at least introduce sufficient doubt to the point that I'm no longer considering them as strong for Pro's case.

The rebuttal round is where I think Pro really drops the ball. I think he had the opportunity to gain quite a bit of ground here, but his responses function entirely based on two points: that all he has to do is show that probability is ever so lightly on his side, and that Occam's Razor supports his views.

The BoP point is, frankly, nonsensical, especially given Con's articulated view of how the BoP functions. Small differences in probability really aren't enough to meet the BoP under these views, and Pro never directly addresses them. Moreover, the difference between probability and possibility is very important because merely presenting a larger set of possibilities doesn't increase the probability of Pro's case being true.

Occam's Razor is just strangely applied, since it seems to assume that Con's case is making a number of assumptions itself when he's not making any that I can see. Beyond that, Pro just seems to be throwing it at every problem he finds with Con's responses. The point that humans create computers, therefore all computers must have been created by an intelligent creator is, frankly, baffling. It doesn't even employ Occam's Razor, despite stating it. Pro's right that merely presenting alternate theories isn't enough to dismiss a well-elucidated case that doesn't make bare assertions, but what Con's pointing out is that the assumptions Pro is making are bare assertions, and thus that any other possibility is just as likely. And he's introduced those alternatives practically across the board.

The other applications of Occam's Razor are even more head-scratching. If anything, Occam's Razor tells us that the current existence of post-humans is an assumption too far. Maybe if this had been solely about the possibility of a post-human civilization existing at some point in the future, which both sides appear to assume must happen, then the number of assumptions as to what they would do is reduced. But that's a different story and not applicable to Con's argument. Pro's acceptance of the fact that Bostrom's argument and his own requires numerous assumptions that function heavily against him with Occam's Razor in play. I honestly don't know what logic Pro was trying to employ when he's saying that assumptions are allowable in his case, but that Occam's Razor still supports him.

So there's really not much more for me to say. Con correctly identifies the problems in Pro's rebuttals and leaves me with little choice but to support him by the end of this round. Pro's forfeit just seals the outcome.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:42:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Thanks for the RFD, whiteflame.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:11:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM, whiteflame wrote
Taken from con.
" It seems that Pro defends that the universe is a computer simulation. How does that entail an intelligent creator? Pro will probably argue that for a computational system to exist, there has to be an intelligent cause. But there"s no reason to suppose that, except that our own worlds seem like that. There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world."
This argument is a fallacy of infinite regression and has no explanatory value. Claiming that a human somehow is obligated to argue what a computer is other than the human concept of one is a joke.
If you can't know the other world, saying laws of science don't necessarily apply is also a non argument. It could also be an acknowledgment from con that science in "other world" knows God exists and has proven it. Its actually a concession that God might have been proven by science in another world.
Then CON completely contradicts his first attempt at making a point. He says...
"Pro doesn"t even give a reason to think a post-human civilization exists. Just because *we* can become post-human doesn"t mean someone else already has. Merely possibility doesn"t entail the existence of such a civilization. There"s no real reason to conclude that there is some post-human civilization out there."
Well if there's no reason to believe there is another intelligent civilization out there, which is what is being implied by post human, then CON can't argue in the first paragraph that pro is obligated to speak of a computer on any other terms than human ones. Con simply doesn't have a consistent argument and I didn't even get 2 paragraphs into the debate.
Then Tjrectics goes into his typical equivocation fallacy in regards to "time being linear". Gotta love people who think a definition isn't applicable in his fantasy world of how time is defined. Another non argument.
And what is baffling about this statement?
"All computers were created by humans therefore all computers were created by an intelligent designer or creator"
This is as close to a scientific fact that someone can claim.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:18:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:11:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM, whiteflame wrote
Taken from con.
" It seems that Pro defends that the universe is a computer simulation. How does that entail an intelligent creator? Pro will probably argue that for a computational system to exist, there has to be an intelligent cause. But there"s no reason to suppose that, except that our own worlds seem like that. There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world."
This argument is a fallacy of infinite regression and has no explanatory value. Claiming that a human somehow is obligated to argue what a computer is other than the human concept of one is a joke.
If you can't know the other world, saying laws of science don't necessarily apply is also a non argument. It could also be an acknowledgment from con that science in "other world" knows God exists and has proven it. Its actually a concession that God might have been proven by science in another world.
Then CON completely contradicts his first attempt at making a point. He says...
"Pro doesn"t even give a reason to think a post-human civilization exists. Just because *we* can become post-human doesn"t mean someone else already has. Merely possibility doesn"t entail the existence of such a civilization. There"s no real reason to conclude that there is some post-human civilization out there."
Well if there's no reason to believe there is another intelligent civilization out there, which is what is being implied by post human, then CON can't argue in the first paragraph that pro is obligated to speak of a computer on any other terms than human ones. Con simply doesn't have a consistent argument and I didn't even get 2 paragraphs into the debate.
Then Tjrectics goes into his typical equivocation fallacy in regards to "time being linear". Gotta love people who think a definition isn't applicable in his fantasy world of how time is defined. Another non argument.
And what is baffling about this statement?
"All computers were created by humans therefore all computers were created by an intelligent designer or creator"
This is as close to a scientific fact that someone can claim.

...If you want to have a debate with him over this, be my guest. I posted this as an RFD for the debate, meaning I didn't impose my views on the various arguments given. All of what you've said here may have been relevant if it was stated, but much of it wasn't stated, and frankly, I find some of it problematic.

But, again, this is an RFD. I didn't post it to have an argument with you over what happened in the debate and why you think about it differently. If you want to post comments on that debate, feel free. If you want to message tejretics and have it out with him, go for it. This is not the place to be doing that.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:43:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:18:34 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:11:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM, whiteflame wrote
Taken from con.
" It seems that Pro defends that the universe is a computer simulation. How does that entail an intelligent creator? Pro will probably argue that for a computational system to exist, there has to be an intelligent cause. But there"s no reason to suppose that, except that our own worlds seem like that. There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world."
This argument is a fallacy of infinite regression and has no explanatory value. Claiming that a human somehow is obligated to argue what a computer is other than the human concept of one is a joke.
If you can't know the other world, saying laws of science don't necessarily apply is also a non argument. It could also be an acknowledgment from con that science in "other world" knows God exists and has proven it. Its actually a concession that God might have been proven by science in another world.
Then CON completely contradicts his first attempt at making a point. He says...
"Pro doesn"t even give a reason to think a post-human civilization exists. Just because *we* can become post-human doesn"t mean someone else already has. Merely possibility doesn"t entail the existence of such a civilization. There"s no real reason to conclude that there is some post-human civilization out there."
Well if there's no reason to believe there is another intelligent civilization out there, which is what is being implied by post human, then CON can't argue in the first paragraph that pro is obligated to speak of a computer on any other terms than human ones. Con simply doesn't have a consistent argument and I didn't even get 2 paragraphs into the debate.
Then Tjrectics goes into his typical equivocation fallacy in regards to "time being linear". Gotta love people who think a definition isn't applicable in his fantasy world of how time is defined. Another non argument.
And what is baffling about this statement?
"All computers were created by humans therefore all computers were created by an intelligent designer or creator"
This is as close to a scientific fact that someone can claim.

...If you want to have a debate with him over this, be my guest. I posted this as an RFD for the debate, meaning I didn't impose my views on the various arguments given. All of what you've said here may have been relevant if it was stated, but much of it wasn't stated, and frankly, I find some of it problematic.

But, again, this is an RFD. I didn't post it to have an argument with you over what happened in the debate and why you think about it differently. If you want to post comments on that debate, feel free. If you want to message tejretics and have it out with him, go for it. This is not the place to be doing that.
Don't tell me what place I should or shouldn't do anything sir. I do whatever I want. And since you can't point out what's problematic, i'll take that as you're not aware this is a debate forum or you simply can't make an argument for why my points were problematic.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:52:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:43:50 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:18:34 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:11:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM, whiteflame wrote
Taken from con.
" It seems that Pro defends that the universe is a computer simulation. How does that entail an intelligent creator? Pro will probably argue that for a computational system to exist, there has to be an intelligent cause. But there"s no reason to suppose that, except that our own worlds seem like that. There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world."
This argument is a fallacy of infinite regression and has no explanatory value. Claiming that a human somehow is obligated to argue what a computer is other than the human concept of one is a joke.
If you can't know the other world, saying laws of science don't necessarily apply is also a non argument. It could also be an acknowledgment from con that science in "other world" knows God exists and has proven it. Its actually a concession that God might have been proven by science in another world.
Then CON completely contradicts his first attempt at making a point. He says...
"Pro doesn"t even give a reason to think a post-human civilization exists. Just because *we* can become post-human doesn"t mean someone else already has. Merely possibility doesn"t entail the existence of such a civilization. There"s no real reason to conclude that there is some post-human civilization out there."
Well if there's no reason to believe there is another intelligent civilization out there, which is what is being implied by post human, then CON can't argue in the first paragraph that pro is obligated to speak of a computer on any other terms than human ones. Con simply doesn't have a consistent argument and I didn't even get 2 paragraphs into the debate.
Then Tjrectics goes into his typical equivocation fallacy in regards to "time being linear". Gotta love people who think a definition isn't applicable in his fantasy world of how time is defined. Another non argument.
And what is baffling about this statement?
"All computers were created by humans therefore all computers were created by an intelligent designer or creator"
This is as close to a scientific fact that someone can claim.

...If you want to have a debate with him over this, be my guest. I posted this as an RFD for the debate, meaning I didn't impose my views on the various arguments given. All of what you've said here may have been relevant if it was stated, but much of it wasn't stated, and frankly, I find some of it problematic.

But, again, this is an RFD. I didn't post it to have an youargument with you over what happened in the debate and why you think about it differently. If you want to post comments on that debate, feel free. If you want to message tejretics and have it out with him, go for it. This is not the place to be doing that.
Don't tell me what place I should or shouldn't do anything sir. I do whatever I want. And since you can't point out what's problematic, i'll take that as you're not aware this is a debate forum or you simply can't make an argument for why my points were problematic.

...I honestly don't care. I'm not debating you on the issue of whether one of the debaters is correct because that's not what giving an RFD is about. That's what debating is about. That's why it's confusing that you're trying to debate me about the debate on my RFD. So yeah, you can keep posting here, but it won't engender any further response from me.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:47:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:52:23 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:43:50 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:18:34 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/21/2016 6:11:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:10:37 PM, whiteflame wrote
Taken from con.
" It seems that Pro defends that the universe is a computer simulation. How does that entail an intelligent creator? Pro will probably argue that for a computational system to exist, there has to be an intelligent cause. But there"s no reason to suppose that, except that our own worlds seem like that. There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world."
This argument is a fallacy of infinite regression and has no explanatory value. Claiming that a human somehow is obligated to argue what a computer is other than the human concept of one is a joke.
If you can't know the other world, saying laws of science don't necessarily apply is also a non argument. It could also be an acknowledgment from con that science in "other world" knows God exists and has proven it. Its actually a concession that God might have been proven by science in another world.
Then CON completely contradicts his first attempt at making a point. He says...
"Pro doesn"t even give a reason to think a post-human civilization exists. Just because *we* can become post-human doesn"t mean someone else already has. Merely possibility doesn"t entail the existence of such a civilization. There"s no real reason to conclude that there is some post-human civilization out there."
Well if there's no reason to believe there is another intelligent civilization out there, which is what is being implied by post human, then CON can't argue in the first paragraph that pro is obligated to speak of a computer on any other terms than human ones. Con simply doesn't have a consistent argument and I didn't even get 2 paragraphs into the debate.
Then Tjrectics goes into his typical equivocation fallacy in regards to "time being linear". Gotta love people who think a definition isn't applicable in his fantasy world of how time is defined. Another non argument.
And what is baffling about this statement?
"All computers were created by humans therefore all computers were created by an intelligent designer or creator"
This is as close to a scientific fact that someone can claim.

...If you want to have a debate with him over this, be my guest. I posted this as an RFD for the debate, meaning I didn't impose my views on the various arguments given. All of what you've said here may have been relevant if it was stated, but much of it wasn't stated, and frankly, I find some of it problematic.

But, again, this is an RFD. I didn't post it to have an youargument with you over what happened in the debate and why you think about it differently. If you want to post comments on that debate, feel free. If you want to message tejretics and have it out with him, go for it. This is not the place to be doing that.
Don't tell me what place I should or shouldn't do anything sir. I do whatever I want. And since you can't point out what's problematic, i'll take that as you're not aware this is a debate forum or you simply can't make an argument for why my points were problematic.

...I honestly don't care. I'm not debating you on the issue of whether one of the debaters is correct because that's not what giving an RFD is about. That's what debating is about. That's why it's confusing that you're trying to debate me about the debate on my RFD. So yeah, you can keep posting here, but it won't engender any further response from me.
In regards to you I asked one simple question you didn't answer. Everything else was an observation about what TJ said. Not really sure why that's hard to understand. You claimed something I said was problematic yet didn't address it. You don't own this thread. And you don't determine what someone does or doesn't say on it.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 2:43:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
In regards to you I asked one simple question you didn't answer. Everything else was an observation about what TJ said. Not really sure why that's hard to understand. You claimed something I said was problematic yet didn't address it. You don't own this thread. And you don't determine what someone does or doesn't say on it.

a) The "simple question" you asked has nothing to do with anything I said in my RFD. I said that it was baffling to make that statement and say that it's affirmed by Occam's Razor, not that the statement was itself wrong.

b) I never said you couldn't post here. I said that you'd be better off posting on the debate where tejretics could see what you're saying. He doesn't get updates on who responds to this thread. Only I do. That means that everything you said with regards to his statements never reaches him. You could respond to him on the debate and actually get a discussion going, or you can keep talking to me. Seems kind of strange to do the latter when you spent so much time going off on what tej said.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:43:08 PM, whiteflame wrote:
In regards to you I asked one simple question you didn't answer. Everything else was an observation about what TJ said. Not really sure why that's hard to understand. You claimed something I said was problematic yet didn't address it. You don't own this thread. And you don't determine what someone does or doesn't say on it.

a) The "simple question" you asked has nothing to do with anything I said in my RFD. I said that it was baffling to make that statement and say that it's affirmed by Occam's Razor, not that the statement was itself wrong.

b) I never said you couldn't post here. I said that you'd be better off posting on the debate where tejretics could see what you're saying. He doesn't get updates on who responds to this thread. Only I do. That means that everything you said with regards to his statements never reaches him. You could respond to him on the debate and actually get a discussion going, or you can keep talking to me. Seems kind of strange to do the latter when you spent so much time going off on what tej said.
That's true, but you're simply wrong, Fisrt didn't spend "so much time" on anything. Second I merely asked you why something was baffling to you. If I misread what you were referring to as baffling , then you should have said so or simply admit you're not aware of why something baffles you. If discussing things you said on this thread isn't the place, then exactly where is the place? What I said about Tj isn't debatable, it's an observation about his inconsistency. Except for of course his fantasy world in which time has a different definition.
And maybe I misunderstand RFD. Do people always debate against something, like you did with the baffling comment, then turn around and tell other people not to inquire as to why that comment baffles you?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:17:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 7:56:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:43:08 PM, whiteflame wrote:
In regards to you I asked one simple question you didn't answer. Everything else was an observation about what TJ said. Not really sure why that's hard to understand. You claimed something I said was problematic yet didn't address it. You don't own this thread. And you don't determine what someone does or doesn't say on it.

a) The "simple question" you asked has nothing to do with anything I said in my RFD. I said that it was baffling to make that statement and say that it's affirmed by Occam's Razor, not that the statement was itself wrong.

b) I never said you couldn't post here. I said that you'd be better off posting on the debate where tejretics could see what you're saying. He doesn't get updates on who responds to this thread. Only I do. That means that everything you said with regards to his statements never reaches him. You could respond to him on the debate and actually get a discussion going, or you can keep talking to me. Seems kind of strange to do the latter when you spent so much time going off on what tej said.
That's true, but you're simply wrong, Fisrt didn't spend "so much time" on anything. Second I merely asked you why something was baffling to you. If I misread what you were referring to as baffling , then you should have said so or simply admit you're not aware of why something baffles you. If discussing things you said on this thread isn't the place, then exactly where is the place? What I said about Tj isn't debatable, it's an observation about his inconsistency. Except for of course his fantasy world in which time has a different definition.
And maybe I misunderstand RFD. Do people always debate against something, like you did with the baffling comment, then turn around and tell other people not to inquire as to why that comment baffles you?

Look, you seem to want to turn this into a debate of some sort, but I don't care to engage with you in a discussion of what I should or should not have done when you responded to a thread that I posted solely for the sake of clarifying a vote I made on someone else's debate. That wasn't my goal with this, and while you'd apparently like to do so, I'm just not willing to go with you there. I've gone as far as I can go with explaining why I said what I did in my vote, which you apparently misunderstood. I explained why it baffled me. If you're upset that it took a few tries to get me to respond and set the record straight, then I think you should take this opportunity to get over it and move on. I was frustrated that you posted a great deal of material relevant only to your views of tejretics' arguments, but as you asked me to respond, I did eventually get there. If you still want clarification beyond what I've said, then address what I said and I'll come back to it. Otherwise, there's no reason for us to continue this discussion.

It doesn't matter how much time you spent on your initial response. If your goal was to respond to tejretics, I'm telling you, this is the wrong place to do it because he won't see it. I've already offered up the option of posting directly on the debate, which I linked at the top of this thread, or you could friend him and engage in a personal discussion. Right now, you and I are the only ones engaging in this discussion. Bringing up faults with his case is a nice intellectual exercise, but it just doesn't make sense to post it here, since I'm clearly unwilling to engage with you on it and wasn't the person to make the points to which you were responding.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:56:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:17:46 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/21/2016 7:56:10 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:43:08 PM, whiteflame wrote:
In regards to you I asked one simple question you didn't answer. Everything else was an observation about what TJ said. Not really sure why that's hard to understand. You claimed something I said was problematic yet didn't address it. You don't own this thread. And you don't determine what someone does or doesn't say on it.

a) The "simple question" you asked has nothing to do with anything I said in my RFD. I said that it was baffling to make that statement and say that it's affirmed by Occam's Razor, not that the statement was itself wrong.

b) I never said you couldn't post here. I said that you'd be better off posting on the debate where tejretics could see what you're saying. He doesn't get updates on who responds to this thread. Only I do. That means that everything you said with regards to his statements never reaches him. You could respond to him on the debate and actually get a discussion going, or you can keep talking to me. Seems kind of strange to do the latter when you spent so much time going off on what tej said.
That's true, but you're simply wrong, Fisrt didn't spend "so much time" on anything. Second I merely asked you why something was baffling to you. If I misread what you were referring to as baffling , then you should have said so or simply admit you're not aware of why something baffles you. If discussing things you said on this thread isn't the place, then exactly where is the place? What I said about Tj isn't debatable, it's an observation about his inconsistency. Except for of course his fantasy world in which time has a different definition.
And maybe I misunderstand RFD. Do people always debate against something, like you did with the baffling comment, then turn around and tell other people not to inquire as to why that comment baffles you?

Look, you seem to want to turn this into a debate of some sort, but I don't care to engage with you in a discussion of what I should or should not have done when you responded to a thread that I posted solely for the sake of clarifying a vote I made on someone else's debate. That wasn't my goal with this, and while you'd apparently like to do so, I'm just not willing to go with you there. I've gone as far as I can go with explaining why I said what I did in my vote, which you apparently misunderstood. I explained why it baffled me. If you're upset that it took a few tries to get me to respond and set the record straight, then I think you should take this opportunity to get over it and move on. I was frustrated that you posted a great deal of material relevant only to your views of tejretics' arguments, but as you asked me to respond, I did eventually get there. If you still want clarification beyond what I've said, then address what I said and I'll come back to it. Otherwise, there's no reason for us to continue this discussion.

It doesn't matter how much time you spent on your initial response. If your goal was to respond to tejretics, I'm telling you, this is the wrong place to do it because he won't see it. I've already offered up the option of posting directly on the debate, which I linked at the top of this thread, or you could friend him and engage in a personal discussion. Right now, you and I are the only ones engaging in this discussion. Bringing up faults with his case is a nice intellectual exercise, but it just doesn't make sense to post it here, since I'm clearly unwilling to engage with you on it and wasn't the person to make the points to which you were responding.
No, pointing out the inconsistency was simply because you didn't or I overlooked it if you did.
Asking you why the phrase I sighted was baffling to you is engaging you in a debate? Lol