This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Biofeedback - Replacing Medicine?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
How would a zombie apocalypse
not
related to the real world? I'm confused here; you're saying that things like that don't have any connection - then why discuss them at all? I can't think of really anything that has absolutely zero connection to the real world, even the most outlandish discussion. Can you clarify what you mean here?
Because there's not going to be a zombie apocalypse...
At the risk of sounding insane, how do you KNOW that there won't be?
Precisely. The probability of such a thing occurring is so slim that there is no sane rationale to discuss such a thing.
For example - at the turn of the century, people were selling Y2K bug spray - aerosol cans containing an anti-Y2K spray that would kill the bugs before they can infect your computer.
Is this related to the real world? Yes, because people were flushing money down the toilet to get these things. So a useful discussion to have would be explaining why it doesn't work and why it's a waste of money.
Let's now consider how such a Y2K bug spray would actually work in theory. Is this related to the real world? Absolutely not, since there's no such thing as a physical Y2K bug to be killed. Therefore, there is no sense in talking about it as if it were real in relation to the real world.
It's like talking about comic books. There is an internally coherent system within the world of Erfworld, or the DC Universes, or whatever piece of fiction you read. You can discuss them, fair enough. But there's no point talking about Erfworld physics with hex barriers and barriers between airspace and groundspace, in the context of the real world, because there is no real connection between them.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If you're keeping the connection to the real world, your arguments cannot be anymore valid than what you started with. So if zombie apocalypse has no statistical import on real life, anything you conclude from it will has no statistical import.
And no, I would deny that there was evidence that there was a Y2K bug. Why? Because there wasn't. And thus any "evidence" was either made-up or misinterpreted data that had no relevance.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I think the difference here is that you guys think that I am using the fallacy that because something cannot be proven as absolutely false, it is therefore true.
No, we don't. We're saying that if you can't reasonably demonstrate a scenario whereby it's true, it's not worth discussing, because it's out of the realms of reason.
Squish, with your Y2K argument, couldn't you apply that to religion and say that religion doesn't apply.
You could apply it, but you couldn't come to that conclusion. Religion is inherently linked to the real world, because it postulates that a real-life event occurred. As with the Y2K bug spray, you can discuss whether or not religion is true or not. If you believe religion isn't true, however, there's little point in discussing with other non-believers how the mechanics of Christianity work, unless your goal is to further your understanding of Christianity for when you next debate it with your religious friends (oh look, relation back to real life!).
Here is a good example
of discussing something fictional and not attempting to relate it to real life. Are they trying to convert what happens in game into a real-life outcome? No. They're discussing it purely within the internally coherent constraints of the game mechanics.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not trying to gain credibility here. I just don't appreciate things like this, that have even a sliver of relevance, being labelled as insanity.
How are you getting from "pointless" and "a waste of time" to "insanity"?
True enough, but that didn't stop people from believing it.
But belief has nothing to do with the issue.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, the belief became mainstream, and this caused it to become "factual" in the sense of being mindlessly believed by large masses of people.
What? Things don't become factual (unless you hold to a consensus theory of truth...in which case, my response is still "What?").
Taking this - if only semi-sane discussions are built around this framework , then those not built around this framework would be non-semi-sane, or insane. That's where I got insane from.
So you don't discuss zombies in a theoretical frame-work?
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A mob of people that believes something as true doesn't care if their belief is factual - they believe it to be true. From a subjective viewpoint of the mob, then, it would be true; from an objective viewpoint (from the outside, such as we are discussing regarding Y2K), it would be baseless. However, to the people, subjectively, it was true. I'm taking it from both the subjective and the objective viewpoint. You are looking at it objectively only.
Either truth is objective or it's not. You're equivocating if you use it for both.
Not really - I discuss them as a possibility, just as I discuss the possibility of being hit by a bus while crossing the street.
And that's just as crazy as the person talking like she's going to win the lottery 5,000 times in a row like it's getting her mail.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh. It doesn't have to be proven true to be in the realm of reasons.
It doesn't have to be observed. If we can logically reason with confidence that the zombie apocalypse won't occur, that's sufficient argument to treat it as not real-world.
How would an event in the future that has a belief surrounding it, such as Y2K not apply to this?
I already said - you can discuss whether Y2K exists with relation to the real world. The discussion about how such a bug spray would work is fictional and pointless.
Also, how can a group of non-religious people understand religion without discussing it with religious people?
Have you never studied anything new before?
Game mechanics have people behind them. Games have people playing them. People in exist in real life. Therefore, I see it as relating to real life.
I am currently picturing a meteor falling upon your house a minute ago in my mind. This image is imagined by me. I exist in real life. Therefore, according to your argument, you see it as relating to real life.
Do you see any flaws with this argument?
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
What defines something as being "logically reasoned with confidence" to be impossible?
I never said that the zombie apocalypse is impossible. I just said that it's not worth considering in the context of real life.
Once again, see above. You feel that it has been reasoned to impossibility - I do not.
The bugs were a work of someone's imagination. If you think that the imagination can somehow create reality, that's fine in your world. I don't think it's worth considering in the context of real life.
Yes, but I go to people who understand the topic - You don't go to you Philosophy teacher to ask them an advanced biology question, just like you don't go to a non-religious person to ask how "X" religious group feels about "Y" thing. Yes, the non-religious person could have gotten the answer from somewhere, but the eventual source would be a religious person. However, secondary sources are subject to more bias than primary sources, as I'm sure we can agree.
If I want to change a fitting in my toilet, I'll experiment and do it myself. I don't need to hire a plumber to teach me how to do it. Ditto with changing a car tyre, changing a light bulb, cooking a meal, etc.
Yes. I do. I see it as a distinct possibility. I may not exist in 30 seconds, just as the sun may have just gone Supernova, and we will never know. Interesting belief, especially for discussions regarding mortality, wouldn't you agree?
I am currently picturing a meteor falling upon your house
a minute ago
in my mind.
Emphasis bolded. I don't see it as a distinct possibility at all, because it didn't happen. You still think it relates to real life? Because if you do, I don't know that it's worth my time discussing this.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Let me rephrase then: How are you defining something to be reasoned to no longer be worth considering in the context of real life?
The probability of its occurrence is insignificant, to X% degree of confidence.
Imagination and the things created by that aren't a distinct part of real life?
No.
Once again, I'm confused as to why you're dismissing the idea that imagined things are a part of life.
I'm amused as to why you think that imagined things are a part of real life. Especially impossible imagined things (e.g. things that should have occurred in the past).
Also, how can a group of non-religious people understand religion without discussing it with religious people?
However, I don't see the possibility of self-teaching-without-a-source to be relevant in discussing something to do with sources. Do you?
You asked how can non-religious people understand religion without discussing it with sources. I'm saying that you can self-teach. You don't need a religious person to pick up the Bible.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I had a feeling I might get a variable here.
Precisely. Sanity is variable too.
True enough, but it could be argued that all religions take from "X" source. One person might read that source, form his own opinion, and make a decision, without fully understanding how different interpretations are formed or why certain things are given credit/discredited.
That doesn't discount the fact that you don't need a religious person in the discussion to discuss religion. It just means you're more likely to get it wrong, when you eventually do cross-check with someone who is religious.
it seems as thought he sees it as a relativistic perception of "how do you know that this is real, therefore, how can you discount something as imagined." How do you respond to this?
How can you relate something to real life, if you don't know what real life is?
You can relate your imagination to your own reality, and it won't bother me. Once you start relating your imagination to what I consider reality, there is a disconnect, and I see your imagination as pointless, because your imagination does not exist in my reality (or has an insignificant probability of occurring, sufficient for me to discount it).
If you're going to interact with people and discuss how things affect 'real life', all you can do is to deal with the shared perception of what 'real life' is. As soon as you cross an idea that does not exist in one person's perception of 'real life', there is no point discussing it in the context of 'real life'.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Moderate realism. If you don't know what that is look it up. I'm that pretty much to a
t
.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.