Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Defeating death
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
kysse wrote:tycho wrote:
Fast 'answers' provide people with opportunities to decide and 'act'. That's true. But action is a 'reply'. At least according to your 'definitions'. An action always elicits another action.
Or would you like to show me an action that 'closes everything'?
Answers >>Decisions>> Actions>>Progress Replies>>Arguments/Deliberations/Discussions. So if an action is a reply as you say,then please note that it's a reply to an Answer and not a Reply to a Reply. An action that closes everything is the action that is based on an Answer. eg. Is the cup black? Yes!! The 'YES' is the answer whose resulting action is that of not posting again(CLOSURE). When you reply, the resulting action is a never ending tread.(NO CLOSURE) I don't think you're serious with your definitions kysse. Otherwise that you now admit that actions are responses to answers and not replies is a joke. For me threads don't end for the sake of it; and when a thread is exhausted another opens. Incidentally, have you been giving answers or replies? Who or what determines an answer or reply?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/17/2013 Posts: 4,693 Location: Earth
|
Ah that wazua downtime.. I don't have the psyche to continue,besides we are going round and round because we can't say yes/no. I give up. 
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor. First, while you can claim to know what these are, you can only do so to the limit of where you 'want to strike the balance' but where do I want to strike the balance? You don't monopolize Occam's razor. Secondly, while an individual's focus is mostly limited, hence the perception of limited time and resources. The mind, and time, and hence resources are in fact, infinite and unlimited. The subject of this thread is about approaching this infinity and undermining your logic- the logic of death.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
kysse wrote:Ah that wazua downtime.. I don't have the psyche to continue,besides we are going round and round because we can't say yes/no. I give up. Kysse, if you know how to give 'answers' and not 'replies' why do you need to 'give up'? You should just supply the relevant answers! But alas, you began your argument with false premises that answers and replies are different. Google either definition and you'll find the other word defining it. The two are the same. So you give up not because you can't say yes or no, but because your logic of death can't sustain itself here.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor. First, while you can claim to know what these are, you can only do so to the limit of where you 'want to strike the balance' but where do I want to strike the balance? You don't monopolize Occam's razor. Secondly, while an individual's focus is mostly limited, hence the perception of limited time and resources. The mind, and time, and hence resources are in fact, infinite and unlimited. The subject of this thread is about approaching this infinity and undermining your logic- the logic of death. I am unable to find something in your answer to latch on so that I can provide a coherent answer. Yes, balance is yours..you define its limits..these vary from one person to the next. Secondly, it is not a "perception" of limited time and resources, it is limited time and resources, period. A mind cannot transcend its physical death. A mind, not its ideas.To put it simply, if you have an earth shattering theorem to put to the world which occurred to you while strolling a park and you want to get back to the house to type it out to the world, but alas suddenly you are run down while crossing the street, the world will be cut off from your thought. We access the work that the physical realm allowed you to put out while you were ALIVE. That is in general called "legacy". I dont claim to monopolize Occam's razor, I just interpret it in a certain way. How do you interpret it?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 10/8/2010 Posts: 763 Location: Intersection
|
tycho wrote:quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor. First, while you can claim to know what these are, you can only do so to the limit of where you 'want to strike the balance' but where do I want to strike the balance? You don't monopolize Occam's razor. Secondly, while an individual's focus is mostly limited, hence the perception of limited time and resources. The mind, and time, and hence resources are in fact, infinite and unlimited. The subject of this thread is about approaching this infinity and undermining your logic- the logic of death. del...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor. First, while you can claim to know what these are, you can only do so to the limit of where you 'want to strike the balance' but where do I want to strike the balance? You don't monopolize Occam's razor. Secondly, while an individual's focus is mostly limited, hence the perception of limited time and resources. The mind, and time, and hence resources are in fact, infinite and unlimited. The subject of this thread is about approaching this infinity and undermining your logic- the logic of death. I am unable to find something in your answer to latch on so that I can provide a coherent answer. Yes, balance is yours..you define its limits..these vary from one person to the next. Secondly, it is not a "perception" of limited time and resources, it is limited time and resources, period. A mind cannot transcend its physical death. A mind, not its ideas.To put it simply, if you have an earth shattering theorem to put to the world which occurred to you while strolling a park and you want to get back to the house to type it out to the world, but alas suddenly you are run down while crossing the street, the world will be cut off from your thought. We access the work that the physical realm allowed you to put out while you were ALIVE. That is in general called "legacy". I dont claim to monopolize Occam's razor, I just interpret it in a certain way. How do you interpret it? 'A mind', or to put it precisely, 'an individual's mind' can only exist if there's an 'overall' mind that goes beyond space-time. Even Pierre Curie's death on the road didn't and hasn't stopped the advance of his ideas. Occam's razor is best used within a paradigm and not across paradigms.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:quicksand wrote:tycho wrote:Kysse, please educate me; what's the difference between an 'answer' and a 'reply'? The feeling or the situation of putting matters to rest? Closing an investigation?
To me this is 'simplification' perhaps 'oversimplification'. It's useful, but very briefly. Otherwise there'd be no growth, or history. Among many other things. Even there'd be no 'life'. Begs to differ. It all depends on where you want to strike your balance or equilibrium. Yours are Rube Goldberg-like constructions. Complications, to boil them down to their essence. They are good for provoking thought, distractions, entertainment even. We cant use these constructs with everyday dilemmas cause we live in a world of finite and fast diminishing resources, especially time. Answers are more useful. Especially of the concise and accurate variety. Fire and motion. Iterative refinement. We are all subject to unbending physical laws - worse, we are subject to laws of majority, averages and courses of least harm. These elements laugh in the face of higher order thinking. And that is the reason why sometimes just giving a straight answer is best. Most times actually. Occam's razor. First, while you can claim to know what these are, you can only do so to the limit of where you 'want to strike the balance' but where do I want to strike the balance? You don't monopolize Occam's razor. Secondly, while an individual's focus is mostly limited, hence the perception of limited time and resources. The mind, and time, and hence resources are in fact, infinite and unlimited. The subject of this thread is about approaching this infinity and undermining your logic- the logic of death. I am unable to find something in your answer to latch on so that I can provide a coherent answer. Yes, balance is yours..you define its limits..these vary from one person to the next. Secondly, it is not a "perception" of limited time and resources, it is limited time and resources, period. A mind cannot transcend its physical death. A mind, not its ideas.To put it simply, if you have an earth shattering theorem to put to the world which occurred to you while strolling a park and you want to get back to the house to type it out to the world, but alas suddenly you are run down while crossing the street, the world will be cut off from your thought. We access the work that the physical realm allowed you to put out while you were ALIVE. That is in general called "legacy". I dont claim to monopolize Occam's razor, I just interpret it in a certain way. How do you interpret it? 'A mind', or to put it precisely, 'an individual's mind' can only exist if there's an 'overall' mind that goes beyond space-time. Even Pierre Curie's death on the road didn't and hasn't stopped the advance of his ideas. Occam's razor is best used within a paradigm and not across paradigms. Ideas. Not mind. Important distinction. The mind is a projection of a physical thing, the brain. Think of a PC but with no electricity. Life is to the brain what electricity is to the computer. Cause the mind is tied to a physical thing, there lies its weak link. Is there an overall mind that goes beyond space time? More importantly, is there dynamic or real time access to its thoughts?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/17/2013 Posts: 4,693 Location: Earth
|
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Defeating death
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|