Symptoms

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Symptoms > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

22-06-2020 18:27
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: It's true that occasionally a person with a common cold has a fever but not as a rule. Are you now completely throwing away your argument that "fevers don't occur with the common cold" and replacing it with this one? keepit wrote: The point is that covid19 isn't a cold or a flu (influenza). The rice-a-rona is a flu. keepit wrote: It is its own thing and has to be viewed that way. No, it is a flu. keepit wrote: The repercussions of covid19 are staggering. Fear mongering. keepit wrote: A cold isn't generally so. A person who dies with the rice-a-rona in their system could just as easily have died with having some sort of rhinovirus in their system. keepit wrote: Get real. I already am. Edited on 22-06-2020 18:34
22-06-2020 21:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	HARVEY, Get real.
22-06-2020 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: HARVEY, Get real. Define 'real'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2020 23:03
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Wikipedia. However, here's a try at that - the state of the universe as it exists indepedent of perception. Of course perception does modify reality. Oops, now i've gotten myself confused. One of the democrats just said something bad about Elvis. That does it - i'm voting for Trump. Edited on 22-06-2020 23:29
22-06-2020 23:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Wikipedia. However, here's a try at that - the state of the universe as it exists indepedent of perception. Of course perception does modify reality. Oops, now i've gotten myself confused. One of the democrats just said something bad about Elvis. That does it - i'm voting for Trump. None of these are the definition of 'real'. This word is defined by philosophy, not by Wikipedia. You are starting down the right road with your 2nd paragraph. Here, you are beginning to enter that branch of philosophy known as Phenomenology, where the word 'real' is defined and why it has that definition. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

22-06-2020 23:38
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Are you pretending to be an expert on reality or just quoting from a source?
23-06-2020 00:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ITN, Are you pretending to be an expert on reality or just quoting from a source? Logic is a source like mathematics is a source. Philosophy is not a source. It is the reasoning behind an argument. It uses no sources. You must present your own arguments and the reasoning for them. You cannot use the arguments of others as your own. I know the definition of 'real'. You are starting to get there with your your 2nd paragraph in your previous post, specifically: However, here's a try at that - the state of the universe as it exists indepedent of perception. Of course perception does modify reality. Oops, now i've gotten myself confused. You need not be confused. The branch of philosophy you are entering into here is called phenomenology. It defines the word 'real' and gives the reasoning for it's definition. Keep going. You are actually headed in the right direction here. Question for you: How do you know what the universe is without perceiving it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-06-2020 00:13
23-06-2020 00:12
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Noone needs someone else to define reality. We all experience it in some way or another. You are just playing with words. It is a sophisticated play but nonetheless just a play.
23-06-2020 00:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Noone needs someone else to define reality. We all experience it in some way or another. You are just playing with words. It is a sophisticated play but nonetheless just a play. Nope. I am asking YOU to define 'real'. Philosophy is not 'playing with words'. You say we all experience 'reality'. How? To say we all experience it does not define it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-06-2020 00:15
23-06-2020 00:24
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, I gave you a pretty good definition of reality. And i told you we all experience it in some way. True, our experience is just a perception but perception is part of reality. Playing with words to try to define it is somewhat removed from the reality of it. Wow. I didn't know i was this good at reality. Edited on 23-06-2020 00:25
23-06-2020 00:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ITN, I gave you a pretty good definition of reality. No, you haven't defined it at all. You are getting there. Keep going. keepit wrote: And i told you we all experience it in some way. You already said this. That is not a definition. keepit wrote: True, our experience is just a perception but perception is part of reality. Playing with words to try to define it is somewhat removed from the reality of it. Philosophy is 'not playing with words'. You keep trying to turn your own argument into a semantic fallacy. keepit wrote: Wow. I didn't know i was this good at reality. You still haven't defined 'real'. Keep going. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 01:00
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I thought i did good enough. A definition is really an analogy and analogies are never perfect. Because of that i don't want to go too far in an endeavor that is not going to work out. Try it yourself. By the way, Cramer (CNBC) just said, "Things are about to get worse, really worse." Edited on 23-06-2020 01:06
23-06-2020 02:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: I thought i did good enough. Not yet. Your argument is incomplete. keepit wrote: A definition is really an analogy and analogies are never perfect. No, a definition is just a definition. There is no analogy required. keepit wrote: Because of that i don't want to go too far in an endeavor that is not going to work out. If you are stuck, start with answer the question I put to you: How do you know what the universe is without perceiving it? Is it possible? If so, how? keepit wrote: Try it yourself. I am already familiar with the definition of 'real'. I am having you go through this exercise so you can define 'real' for yourself. keepit wrote: By the way, Cramer (CNBC) just said, "Things are about to get worse, really worse." So? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 02:38
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Try it your self ITN. No copouts allowed.
23-06-2020 04:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Try it your self ITN. No copouts allowed. Already did. RQAA. I guess by this comment you are refusing to define 'real' or 'reality'. I'll consider it a meaningless buzzword from you then. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-06-2020 04:42

23-06-2020 05:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Try it your self ITN. No copouts allowed. Already did. RQAA. I guess by this comment you are refusing to define 'real' or 'reality'. I'll consider it a meaningless buzzword from you then. One interesting aspect of attempting to define reality is that the definition must, by definition, include itself. Definitions of "reality" that include elements of perception impose those characteristics of "reality" onto the definition itself ... which then alter the meaning of the definition and calls for an adjustment of the definition ... which then calls for an adjustment of the defintion, ... which then calls for an adjustment, etc.. Ergo, any stable definition of "reality" must mirror the definition of "definition." Jussayn. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 05:16
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Ibd, I understand the definition well. It is you that doesn't. ITN, Just ANOTHER copout from you.
23-06-2020 05:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: Ibd, I understand the definition well. It is you that doesn't. You are asking me to believe that there is something that you understand well. I'm not buying it. I realize that Into the Night is shooting WAY over your head when he asks you to define "reality." Ignore him. Show Into the Night that you are going to stick with concepts that are more down to your level like "water glass," "light bulb," "dinner table," etc ... You've got to go at your own pace and no one should be coercing you out of your comfort zone. Just tell Into the Night that you're not quite ready to put concepts into words, and I'll back you up. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 06:29
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	IBD, It sounds like you missed my attempt at defining reality. Just look a 23:03 on this thread. I think it was a good try.
23-06-2020 07:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: IBD, It sounds like you missed my attempt at defining reality. Just look a 23:03 on this thread. I think it was a good try. OK. Sure. I give you credit for trying. There are several problems, however, that I notice right off the bat: keepit wrote: - the state of the universe as it exists indepedent of perception. Of course perception does modify reality. 1. Is the universe all there is? Is there anything outside the universe? If so, your definition doesn't cover it but needs to. 2. Your definition specifies the "state" and not the "nature" of the universe. Reality includes all the relationships that are part of the universe's nature but that are not included in any "state" of the universe. 3. The words "as it exists" are redundant when following the words "the state of." 4. Your definition does not distinguish reality from notional subjunctive imaginations, i.e. you did not specify "independent of opinion or belief." 5. You successfully clued in on the "perception" conundrum. IBDaMann's perception of Black Lives Matter is part of reality ... ergo, perceptions are included in reality. So perceptions about reality pose a potential recursion problem. Perceptions need to be covered by the definition of reality which depends on perceptions of reality which are influenced by perceptions of perceptions of reality, etc., etc., It's easy to address, but it must be addressed because perceptions must be included in the definition of reality. That's a good starter list. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 08:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Just a bunch of semantic argument. You seem to miss the idea of a post quite a bit.
23-06-2020 10:12
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Noone needs someone else to define reality. We all experience it in some way or another. You are just playing with words. It is a sophisticated play but nonetheless just a play. Nope. I am asking YOU to define 'real'. Philosophy is not 'playing with words'. You say we all experience 'reality'. How? To say we all experience it does not define it. Philosophy is arguments. Doesn't matter what you arguing about, who's right or wrong, or even if it' of any consequence. The only thing in philosophy that matter, is that you constantly argue.
23-06-2020 17:17
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: Just a bunch of semantic argument. You seem to miss the idea of a post quite a bit. Yup, you've gotten the "keepit sequence" down quite well: 1) keepit posts something stupid/incomplete/etc. 2) A more intelligent person points that out to keepit. 3) keepit whines about semantics.
23-06-2020 19:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: Just a bunch of semantic argument. You seem to miss the idea of a post quite a bit. Yup, you've gotten the "keepit sequence" down quite well: 1) keepit posts something stupid/incomplete/etc. 2) A more intelligent person points that out to keepit. 3) keepit whines about semantics. You have become quite the expert yourself in recognizing the keepit 3-step process. Climate-Debate has notified the Registrar. . Attached image:
23-06-2020 21:17
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	I GRADUATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice to see such a beautiful picture of myself on there too.
23-06-2020 21:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Try it your self ITN. No copouts allowed. Already did. RQAA. I guess by this comment you are refusing to define 'real' or 'reality'. I'll consider it a meaningless buzzword from you then. One interesting aspect of attempting to define reality is that the definition must, by definition, include itself. Definitions of "reality" that include elements of perception impose those characteristics of "reality" onto the definition itself ... which then alter the meaning of the definition and calls for an adjustment of the definition ... which then calls for an adjustment of the defintion, ... which then calls for an adjustment, etc.. Ergo, any stable definition of "reality" must mirror the definition of "definition." Jussayn. Which is why philosophy is what defines this word. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 21:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Ibd, I understand the definition well. It is you that doesn't. You have never defined 'real' or 'reality'. Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 10d. keepit wrote: ITN, Just ANOTHER copout from you. Inversion fallacy. I gave you a fair chance at defining 'real'. You decided to bail instead. You have no intention of defining 'real'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 21:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: IBD, It sounds like you missed my attempt at defining reality. Just look a 23:03 on this thread. I think it was a good try. Not a definition. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 21:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Just a bunch of semantic argument. You seem to miss the idea of a post quite a bit. Semantics fallacy. Void argument fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2020 22:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Noone needs someone else to define reality. We all experience it in some way or another. You are just playing with words. It is a sophisticated play but nonetheless just a play. Nope. I am asking YOU to define 'real'. Philosophy is not 'playing with words'. You say we all experience 'reality'. How? To say we all experience it does not define it. Philosophy is arguments. Doesn't matter what you arguing about, who's right or wrong, or even if it' of any consequence. The only thing in philosophy that matter, is that you constantly argue. Not really. Philosophy is arguments, that is true. It is also the reasoning behind those arguments. Philosophy is an open functional system. It has no proofs. If you are looking for a proof there, you are looking in the wrong place. The same can be said for science. It can also be said for religion. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. These systems are closed because they operate only within the rules set by their axioms. With the power of the proof also comes the power of prediction. Nothing is settled in philosophy just as nothing is settled in science and nothing is settled in religion (despite what any fundamentalist might believe). Philosophy has basically only one rule: you must make your own arguments. Stealing arguments from others and using them as your own is not making your own argument. Discussions on forums often violate this rule, but many discussions ARE philosophy. Don't discount it. You have made quite convincing philosophical arguments already. It's a lot simpler than it is made out to be in some college class. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate Symptoms: