You have done it again. I was trying to make it easy for you to understand your mischievous behavior, but to no avail. You see, you had reworded an statement of mine in the form a question. I was supposed to deny or confirm your interpretation of my statement, which I did (denying it)
Count Lucanor, if you say that a statement of mine is, in fact, a reworded statement of yours then you have admitted that the statement of mine is yours as you have recognized it yourself as your own. Once you have crossed that line, you claim to be able to renege on your admission simply by saying that isn't so, apparently as if in a huff. To me, this is a form of stepping into the abyss and I'll never follow you there. I am sorry if you have misinterpreted my statement as your own but if it wasn't yours, why do you keep saying that it is? Why can't you simply say that the statement I have made, my statement, does not sum up what you were saying and leave it at that? Where does that need of yours to say that the statement of mine was a rewording of statement of yours comes from? From the facts? How do you know that I was attempting to reword you? I was just asking what seemed to me like a sensible question given the circumstances.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I do believe you are deeply and seriously wrong here. A screen upon which you project stuff does not form a base of a thing just as real silver forms the base of coins that are used as cash. But I am a bit at a loss of how to explain this to you. It's like saying that someone who pedals a bike without having his/her feet on the pedals is just about the same thing as some one who pedals the bike with the foot on the pedals. People who do not appreciate this difference strike me as fairly disconnected and I do believe that this is all too common. I wish to add here that your views here are beyond wrong; they are ultimately dangerous and leads to innocent people getting killed as we have seen in this thread.
I'm afraid it is exactly the other way around: you are acting delusional. It is quite obvious that it is the way a base material is shaped, configured or constructed, that allows to express something with it. In the case of the coins, an image is distinguished by means of a relief pattern in the metallic base material. In the case of a printed image, it is possible by means of the patterns formed by the droplets of ink over the fibers of paper (the base materials). In the case of the computer image, by means of the dot patterns of light colors over the crystal screen. All are images created physically with the base materials. There's no ghostly, absent, unrelated thing here, as you pretend to portray.
I can't comment about how my act appears to you. I am just writing here and responding to your arguments and as far as I know, this is all you can see. Is creating literature an act of delusion to you?
The base of the silver coin has value as silver itself can be exchanged on markets. Silver is a worldly good that is much valued as it concentrate in it a rare material that has value by virtue of being rare. This is the reason why it was selected as the base of the image of Julius Cesare. There is no comparable reason why you would have the image of Julius Cesare put up on a computer screen. The base material is not meant to have value associated with the image. If you print ink over fibers paper to create paper money, you can't make that ink disappear in a flash from the paper and reprint another dollar on that same paper. With a computer image, that same screen can display the images of a different dollar with a different serial number one after the other and there is absolutely no link between the valuable and rare base and the image it bears. Despite representing a series of images of different bills of $100 value, the screen does not increase in value. The computer screen obviously does not bear the value, unlike with other bases used to represent images. How can one say that this isn't so? It seems to me that when you don't understand what a computer screen is all about, you can end up quite confused, if you think about it.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
I feel like you are missing my question here a little. But still, your answer is not devoid of interest. You bring into question the "medium" that carries the representation. This really opens up another can of worms.
One thing about the real world is that it doesn't appear to come to you through any medium or does it? So, how can I see the real world upon a computer screen since the real world does not appear to be channelled into us by any such mediums? Or maybe it does? I want to hear you.
So now you are confusing perception, physical representation and mental representation. The world is simply perceived by our senses and represented in our minds. As mental representation, it is not analogous to the physical representations of signs, images, text, etc., which imply encoding and decoding, and other components of communication. Signals may work as communication devices without intentionality or purpose, but they are not physical representations, just physical manifestations of phenomena that we interpret as an indication of something.
I suggest that the real word does not come to you through any medium and you reply that it (the real word) does come through to you through your senses (the medium).
Do you have any proof to back this up? After all, I am still an Empiricist. Your reply suggest that our senses cannot be sensed because they are doing the sensing. I say that if the senses cannot be sensed, it's because they don't exist. The sensing is done by you and I, not by senses. Having sensitive hands does not imply that there are senses in our hands but simply that we make our hands sensitive because we are. So, the sensing is done by us and not by senses. I don't know where you get the idea that our senses sens things for us. Can you please clarify what you mean here by
it?
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
When you talk about "...a representation of a real character is accurate or not" what do you mean? What does it mean to accurately represent something as opposed to represent something inaccurately? What is the criteria to accurately represent something? Words, for instance, usually don't look like the things they represent (Chinese may be excepted?) and so if not even looking like what you are supposed to represent isn't even a criteria for representing something, what is?
If I'm talking about the representation of a character in any media, it should be obvious that I talk about the physical image of a person portrayed in that material, implying also that such depiction points at the particular characteristics of the subject being referenced, which make them recognizable as such person, or as the typical image associated with that person. Letters, words, text, refer to verbal ideas, so don't get confused. It's worth noticing that in many representations, images work in conjunction with verbal ideas to fully identify characters, so you fill find coins with an image of a human head and an accompanying text saying "Julius Caesar", "Abraham Lincoln", etc. In terms of accuracy, we may have no way of proving how Julius Caesar looked like, but we may have an idea based on known representations of him, and we may distinguish that image from that of Abraham Lincoln.
Words refer to verbal ideas? So when I talk about say, Donald Trump, it's not the real Donald Trump that I am talking about because words only refer to verbal ideas? Words cannot refer to written ideas? Or maybe, there is no such things as written ideas? And what about Donald Trump? Is he only a verbal idea then? Man, I look forward to informing him of that. Ha! Ha! Sorry, but you haven't really clarified things for me here. I don't think words are necessarily verbal (sign language is verbal?), I think ideas are first and foremost worldly, not verbal. Yes, ideas can be expressed in a verbal way but there are other means to express ideas. Words do exist as non-verbal things even if they are meant to represent verbal things; there is such a thing as a non-verbal form of a word otherwise, how could you read this? Despite this, I am grateful for your concerns that I shouldn't get confused. Please do continue to try help me out seeing clearly; I cannot be hopeless.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
I don't think you are supporting your assertion that there is something wrong with my interpretation. Simply stating that real people do make statements through phone call sounds simply like an opinion. Calling others wrong simply because they uphold ideas and arguments that are different from yours is a often viewed as a sign of bigotry. By simply asserting that the medium is irrelevant to the case at hand right after I have made a number of arguments as to how it is relevant is just like screaming, "I dismiss your case!" without bothering to address the arguments that were made supporting it. So, I guess I can similarly dismiss your assessment here.
Certainly, I didn't think that such an obvious fact, understood with common sense, was a polemic, debatable issue, a case to be argued, requiring lengthy meticulous demonstrations. Empiricist Bruno needs them? No problem. Some known cases of people making statements through phone calls:
- Alexandre G. Bell talking to his assistant, Watson, in the first ever telephone call: "Mr Watson, come here. I want to see you." That was on March 10, 1876.
- On February 12, 1877, Graham Bell made the first long-distance phone from the Lyceum in Salem to the Boston Globe in Boston.
- President Nixon's phone call to the first astronauts to land on the moon.
- Mel Gibson's famous rant in 2010 against his ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva.
- Panamanian president Chiari's call to Lyndon Johnson, in protest for the deaths of civilians during riots against US presence in the Canal Zone.
These are all cases of 1) Real people, 2) making statements, 3) using telephones.
There are huge advantages in being able to pass what comes from a cyber window as a worldly statement from a worldly person. You haven't taken this corrupting influence in your assessment of whether what comes out of phones can truly form such statement. When Mr. Bell asked his assistance to come here, his assistant was not within hearing distance of him, so that's when the madness of agreeing to hear what the machine says as the statement of people began. Such mental decrepitude had, in some ways, already begun. For instances even before this, they had wills in which the words of a diseased person would be recognized as the actual will of a person even as that person no longer is part of the living world.
So now, as we realized that what comes out of machines cannot represent the voice of people, we also need to re-evaluate the value and validity of such things as wills.
There are number of ways to make statements. It can be argued that the beginning of phones is the beginning of the cyber world making statement to us using our images and appearances as cover. Things are rarely as simple as they appear to be at first and I think the time has come to realize this, for our own safety.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pmOverall, I think much of the source behind our disagreement lays in the fact that we just aren't on the same page. It's like you know when you see some tv and it looks like a real sceen being portrayed but suddenly a cartoon character appears out of thin air. So, it's a scene where one is real and the other is not, or so it appears to be.
Well, I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page. You're defying basic common sense and I am not.
Congratulations on your simplicity!
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 8:23 pm
Similarly, I am not like you Count Lucanor. Me, Empiricist-Bruno, I am free and unaccountable to anyone and I am of a fictive nature. I am aware that there is a real world out there to which I do not belong and that it is possible for me to influence that world. On the other hand, you Count Lucanor stand as subservient character that's just supposed to be doing according to the will another, presumably from the real world. So you are like a religious zelot who claims to be doing things and saying things as was imposed on him/her/it from above. (Isn't quite hilarious that one of those forced things upon you was to say that you are an atheist on this thread? It really does appear to contradict all that you stand for.)I think you need to evolve from that position, to discover your own freedom, your own world but I realize this may be asking too much from you. You are not your handler, and your handler does not and cannot possess you. I would think you know this already but you enjoy too much pretending to be another to admit the truth here, but that's okay. I think I understand your strategy. Keep it up, it's good!
I have come to realize what I suspected earlier: that you are just an internet troll, presumably justified by your self-identification as a character created by imagination (aka fictional). So you let loose ridiculous statements like the ones above, not feeling you owe anybody a rational approach to any subject. You want to play the Joker and provoke bewilderment, perhaps thinking it will make you look smarter. Why you need that, I don't know, but I really don't want to find out.
How did you came to that conclusion about me being a troll? Did you not notice my moderator badge? I told you what I am about but you prefer to view me differently, and I respect your apparently disrespectful wishes. That's because you cannot truly create offence toward me anymore than you can create offence to say, Mickey Mouse. However, I have more power in this forum than Mickey Mouse does. I am not entirely like Mickey Mouse here even though I clearly belong in his league, somehow. My approach to subjects here is completely and entirely rational. The ideas that I present here have brewed in me for a long time following in depth research and it has led me to the statements that I have made and now I am attempting to convey this intelligence to others the best way I can and I very much appreciate the opportunities that you have given me here to do so. Thank you. No idea of great value has even been welcomed by anything else other than well meant punches.