100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > creativesoul
|
|
|
Ab,
I must wonder something. Do you figure that all stories are lies? If not what separates the ones that are lies from the ones that are not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "there"? It's your argument, make it. We are doomed to the same fate unless we can agree on what "there" means. I suspect that the literal definition of "there" will be a contentious matter so I would like to hear what your answer is before I continue in a senseless debate. Again, there's nothing to discuss yet. Make an argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 04/04/12 10:46 PM
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media... This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. So don't read it AB. Or better yet, join in and add something new...  Something new... Why? You have a made up story (i.e. a LIE)... From which you want people to then extrapolate upon if one can tell a lie without knowing the truth. so then every post to that lie... is a lie. How then can I add anything of substance? I would be discussing a lie in such a way as to attempt to prove a lie. Makes no sense to me. Well, if one equates a hypothetical scenario to a lie, then hypotheticals wouldn't seem very useful. That is an odd way to define a lie, imo. Could be interesting to see what you would call not a lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "there"? It's your argument, make it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media... This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. I agree. I find it odd that while some look for ways to be certain another is lying, when I find ways to imagine that they're not lying, my reasoning is belittled... Oh well,  Pan, you've had numerous offers to present your reasoning. The offer still stands. Present an argument for your last claim. Show us, how based upon what was given, Joe "could be" telling the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media... This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. So don't read it AB. Or better yet, join in and add something new...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think. To state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case; is the way things are, etc. I'm talking about real life liars Creative. Not theories and formulas. To state X is not always to believe that X is true if you are lying. Exactly. That is why self-contradiction, in certain ways at certain times, ought perk yer ears up, so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think. To state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case; is the way things are, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 04/04/12 04:56 PM
|
|
I think it is all pretty simple. A liar has the intention to deceive. A person who repeats a lie thinking or assuming it is truth is not a liar. No argument here. That is fairly well established. The question, for me at least, is how we can know when another is being dishonest and what it takes in order to be ablt to do such a thing. Hence, the reason why bushido and I have proposed criterions for such. It is that criterion that I've been testing throughout the thread, along with the senseless arguing with our friend Pan which has detracted from the aim of the thread and I'm partially responsible for. Thus, I've spent the last several pages attempting to get th thread back on track. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creating Life
|
|
The step from a microbe that eats oil to a microbe that eats humans is practically no step at all. The only part of the genome that needs to be "created" is the part that handles the lethality. This reminds me of something. I remember in the PBS documentary, that the scientists made mention of their ability to 'encode'(for lack of a better word) some sort default mechanism, by which they could control the organism's existence in such a way that the ability to sytematically annihilate it is possible, if the need arises. I suppose my question is if it is possible to stop such synthetic organisms from spontaneuosly evolving/adapting. Life aims to survive afterall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the criterion holds. However, these are all my scenarios, and knowing that it is very difficult for one to see the error of their own way, it is possible that I'm missing something here, or that their is another possible scenario which follows from the criterion and shows inadequacy.
Can anyone propose a scenario which, when we apply the criterion, we arrive at an obviously false conclusion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I'll use what Di proposed earlier in order to provide a context. Joe and Jill have been good friends for a long time. The two habitually jest one another about being as specific and as literal as possible in their language use, especially with one another. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Because of the established history between the two Jill did not want to know if Joe was the only one there in the normal sense of the expression. Rather, Jill is expecting to catch Joe off guard. She is hoping that he doesn't count her, so that she can have an 'Aha!' moment with him - which she does as a result of his not realizing that she was being facetious. Again, I find that Joe has answered honestly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that.
-- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds...
So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give what up? What do you think I'm attempting to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the criterion being put to the test...
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. Earlier an interesting and humorous example was offered in which a kid was instructed to "...say Art Linkletter like you're mad." Now most folk realize, through having used language throughout our lives that the child was being asked to say "Art Linkletter" in an angry voice. I mean that is why is served to be a funny answer for us. However, the child did not quite grasp what he was being asked to do, and instead he repeated "Art Linkletter like your mad", to which the audience and Art himself began laughing while the kid had a look a bewilderment as if he didn't quite get what was so funny. So when we examine this scenario based upon the above criterion, the child's answer was certainly honest, because he offered an answer which he believed captured what he was being asked for; he did what he thought he was being asked to do, in this case. The criterion holds good here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creating Life
|
|
I watched a documentary that included the team of scientists who were explaining what they were doing on PBS(I think) a while back - but within the least year or so. Your summary sounds about right, from my memory. Again the focus was on the ethical considerations after the brute achievement was basically explained.
Many stand opposed to the notion. So, rather than focus upon whether or not it's capable of homeostasis or where along the lin of progress it is, would you care to discuss the ethical aspects, such as briefly discussed in the fox news video? I suppose the fear is the potential for unknown consequences. Realistically, what - on your view - could those be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creating Life
|
|
Although I'm not at all knowledgable on the specifics of the matter, doesn't an organism require some sort of self-regulating homeostasis? Has that been acheived?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
Philosophy is about concepts, not definitions. Folk can judge without having the ability to judge soundly. They can and they do.  What you state is paritally a true statement that people can judge without having the ability to judge soundly for, people do have the ability to judge though, some may not have the ability to judge soundly. Definition was to point out the topic will go nowhere and see it did not. It seems to be a useless topic of meaningless words being thrown out with no relative use for nothing. BravaLady I still believe you are right and still agree with you. Have fun ... good-bye. To me the topic is silly. Some folk do not see value in the pursuit of understanding how judgment works, other folk do. We're all entitled to our opinion. My opinion of someone who enters into a philosophical discussion for the purpose of saying that they think it is silly isn't a good one. Seems rather tactless to me. Philosophical topics are not silly, but this one seems to be because it goes nowhere but to say it is the same or not, a yes or no. There is for me nothing more to say than give an answer to the question you asked, for all you asked for was an answer. Please take no offence it is nothing personal, I guess just a bad topic or wording, that's all. No offense taken. Some topics develop and some don't, it all depends upon who meanders in and what is said. The OP, around here at least, matters little... |
|
|
|
|
Previous
