Logical answers for questions

reply to post by bsbray11


grammatically correct? look i know you pulled one of those questions off of that site that was mentioned earlier. most of the problems posed there were based off of language. very little of them had anything to do with reality. i liked the one about the rebuilt boat though that was really good. (except for rebuilding wood, didn't make any sense.)

Dogs eating gravel worship guitar sticks.

this sentence is grammatically correct yet makes absolutely no sense. i could put a question mark after it if you like? and we could argue all day about how it's a real sentence and what deep meanings it has if you don't understand it. it's BS, plain and simple.

your second point doesn't make any sense. you changed tones halfway to the end of your point. you didn't validate teh first half of your thought and finished up with a completely different idea. i don't know if you thought that would go unoticed or if you thought making sense isn't important in a logical debate. whichever the answer is, it still doesn't matter because..

if entropy is all that there is it CANNOT be true that order is achieved over time. that makes no sense whatsover. therefore order is only percieved and human brains/speech are only viewed as having order. this isn't very complicated. the original question wasn't all that bright and the followup wasn't any better. i don't see why you'd defend it.

reply to post by Moodle


You seem very spiteful, though I couldn't say why. You know, "order" is a human word, based on human perceptions. So is all of science, based upon human perception. I hope you don't feel like getting into a debate about that. What do you think order is, exactly? I feel as though if you feel a human is no more orderly and intelligent in its thermodynamic behavior than anything else in the universe, including a mound of dirt, then I really just feel sorry for you more than anything else. Mainstream science is arrogant and cynical, I hope you realize that. That's why there is no counterforce to entropy in mechanics -- yet. I also feel sorry for all of those who like to limit their own intelligence by perpetually using others' as a crutch, ie what I call "mainstream" science.

If you say my question "What is the answer to this question?," is meaningless BS, as you put it, then you must eventually admit that every statement you form using the rules of grammar is nonsense and ultimately meaningless. At least just as much as my question, which I think is a perfectly valid one. Every word we type is a gross manipulation of reality, very often assuming relationships that are obviously not literally true (for example saying anything "is" anything else, like a car "is" blue, car and blue are obviously not the same), etc. Language is ALL a bunch of nonsense, so I don't see why your panties get all in a knot over this one question in particular, which seems to exemplify perfectly how language is all nonsense.

edit -

wrong thread

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Moodle]

reply to post by bsbray11


posted my "song to listen to before you die" here first (different thread). hehe. was reo speedwagon time for me to fly btw.

umm, back to this thread. i really don't know what to say, you're changing stances and making all sorts of assumptions and not answering anything.

am i supposed to dance now or what? i don't get it.

in the spirit of futility let me try and explain ... one .. point that was brought up.

dogs eating gravel worship guitar sticks. (the sentence you completely ignored)

now this sentence is correct in grammar right? so using logic we can make some assumptions. we can deduce that dogs taht don't eat gravel might not worship guitar sticks. or might do it under certain circumstances only.

i dunno what else to say. if that isn't clear enough it just plain blows.

how about..

if cindy eats five candy bars how many galaxies will explode when rubbed?

what is the logical answer to that?

or how about..

what is teh sound of a cigarette eating a milkmaid?

i dunno.. thoughts?



[edit on 7-7-2009 by Moodle]

reply to post by Moodle


Yes, and all of what you just said is every bit as meaningless as what I am typing this very instant!

This is why monks take vowels of silence. None of this really makes any sense; it's only a convenient way of making distracting noises at each other!!

reply to post by bsbray11


i accept your full and complete submission. please fill out the survey to let me know about your experience so that i can continue to improve service in the future.

Originally posted by Moodle
reply to post by bsbray11

 

if cindy eats five candy bars how many galaxies will explode when rubbed?



[edit on 7-7-2009 by Moodle]

Mind ploy. There is no evidence in your statements that cindy eating any amount of candy bars would cause one galaxy to rub against another, nor is there any supporting information detailing that galaxies would or wouldn't simply merge if they got too close, creating the alternate us living almost simultaneously with the "our reality" us...

reply to post by Moodle


I already said what I wanted to say, and it just confused you. I have nothing else to say, and I'm not sure what you think you've won.

I already understood your points of view, before you even presented them. When I walk away from all these words I will return to "something" that is much more real, that you seem to dance around from a greater distance than myself. Not that it matters, that's what I've been saying all along.

reply to post by Moodle


I think we can logically and safely assume that your questions make no sense. Logic can play a big role in these too.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Moodle

 

Yes, and all of what you just said is every bit as meaningless as what I am typing this very instant!

This is why monks take vowels of silence. None of this really makes any sense; it's only a convenient way of making distracting noises at each other!!

I beg to differ. While words by themselves may have no meaning, it is what they refer to that add meaning. The word "Book" by itself is just a simple pictograph made of symbols to have some sort of significance in the mind of the interpreter. But, if we use it in a sentence like "This book has alot of valuable information" then the mind interprets it exactly as stated. No one word by itself has any meaning. But combine them, and you get a whole that is much greater than its individual parts. The representation in the material realm as to what goes on in the immaterial realm of your mind.

ok i got one for you.
WHAT was the purpose of this thread again?

reply to post by randyvs


The purpose was to introduce some of lifes questions to logical reasoning. I am aware that we have somewhat strayed off topic. The purpose was not to simply answer questions with facts and then argue about who is wrong or right, although that seems to have become this threads course.

Mr. Toodles, I am beginning to think it is every threads course.
(To begin to argue over who is right).

This is a well written and intelligent thread.

s&f for you.

liw

Ok. I will pose a question and see who can come up with the most logical conclusion.

If we as a human race are so destructive and primal, then why is it MANY individuals can be rational and loving and continue to function in a society that is obviously very different?

(remember, logical. Nothing spiritual)

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Mr. Toodles]

reply to post by Mr. Toodles


I'll take a stab.

Bust first I must ask what makes you say that as a race we are destructive and primal? I suspect a good part of the answer to why so many of are rational and loving is that as a race we are and that it is the exception to this that is so strange that it makes the news.

Even if we assume that humans are destructive and primal we are thoughtful. As in we ponder the future and past, not thoughtful as in we are empathic to others. Our primal selves most likely have big egos. We like to think that we are important. Probably want people to continue to celebrate us even after death. All of our selfish deeds go to the grave with us, but those deeds that actually add something to the world; make it a little bit better of a place, they are remembered on after us.

Of course, the same can be said of evil deeds. But then we get punished for the bad things we do so easier to gain a sort of immortality by being a boon to society.

reply to post by Histopherness


I say destructive and primal because our entire history is riddled with war amongst ourselves. Never has there been peace on a global scale. And yet, people as individuals are not war torn and hell bound. How can the pieces that make this world, comprise something that is completely opposite of its parts?

reply to post by Mr. Toodles


Ah yes war. The world doesn't have enough, and that guy over there doesn't believe me. I think those are the basic two causes of war. Still, not looking at war on the large scale but reading the letters of the individual soldiers you find that most people are not trying to be destructive. They believe the propaganda of their leaders and go to war to fight for their way of life because they believe it in danger. Wars are fought by the many but because of the few.

After the opposing leadership is destroyed people pretty much go on with their lives, assimilate each others beliefs and way of life and culture.

Still looks like a minority cause the damage and that the rest of us just get caught up in it. After the minority's steam runs out the basic loving supporting nature of the majority wins out.

reply to post by Histopherness


Seems like a plausible explanation.

Two lines

reply to post by Mr. Toodles

If we as a human race are so destructive and primal, then why is it MANY individuals can be rational and loving and continue to function in a society that is obviously very different

ok. her's my stab. logic dictates. the many varibles in relation to any possible outcome/answer to the Q must first be addressed. ex. there could be a diff. answer for each of the many inds.


2 lines

hell bound

isn't this a spiritual thing?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


So you're saying that even though humans can be compassionate, that there are priorities in individuals lives (ie variables) that take precedence before world peace? If so, makes perfect sense. The sense of selfishness is all prevading throughout humanity, regardless of political status or views.