Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Pavlovian Debaters.

Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 07:31:17 AM
Forums are strange places.
Like foggy marshes in an Irish film-set: populated with malevolent creatures that snap at the heels, can not be reasoned with, and are interested only in flesh.
Monsters that lurk in the shadows, leaping out to snap and worry. Driven to win, at any cost.
There are the benign creatures, too, of course. Creatures of the marsh. It isn't always foggy and dark.
But beware the Pavlovian Debater!

I imagine Van Helsing once dreaded encounters with vampires. Before he became the vampire-hunter par excellence.
Armed with pointed sticks, silver arrows and garlic, the dreaded became merely commonplace. Mere skewer-targets.
Likewise: Pavlovian Debaters are fearsome things, to the novice.
Possessed of a little intellect, an endless supply of whatever it is they use for reason, logic and bedside-manner.
And an immunity to anything they have not yet experienced.
The PD will pose and posture, snarl and insult. All the while, sneering like something far fiercer than it actually is.
There really isn't very much to fear from these creatures, although it takes a few skirmishes to discover that.
Their teeth are made of rubber, and their saliva isn't at all corrosive.
The one thing that terrifies them is to see their own reflection.

Having trouble with these beasts?
Here's my advice to adventurers into the dark world of forums...
PDs don't actually know anything.
They were taught to debate, at high school.
Somehow, their teachers managed to convince them that debating was very important.
And so they debate at every opportunity.
They live to win, and they do this by attempting to reduce all-comers to heaps of singed fur.
I say attempt, because without your help, they can do nothing to harm you.

Their method is to draw you in with invitations to teach them new and wondrous things.
And who can resist such siren songs?
So you relate your real-world experiences, in gullible honesty.
Only to find your real-world was actually created by the PD, and you don't know the first thing about how it works!
But the PD somehow knows every nuance of your real-world, and how it works.
And he makes you look like a complete idiot.
Or so he thinks.

But the happy truth is that the PD is actually a hopeless no-lifer, that has only one trick.
To persuade others that they are worthless, and, like a vampire, suck the life out of them to nourish itself.
And so all you need to know is this:
The PD is toothless to anyone who does not believe in vampires.
Non-existent. Harmless. Formless and powerless.
Hold up a mirror to it, and it vanishes, screaming in despair.
Because the PD really isn't alive at all.
And you are.





Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 08:18:23 AM
Oh Jesus Christ dude, really?  I didn't read most of that, and I am sure nobody else really will either, but I did catch ;

But the PD somehow knows every nuance of your real-world, and how it works.
And he makes you look like a complete idiot.


Your words, not mine. I am sorry I have made you feel bad by arguing why I choose not to believe in superstition and instead choose what is measurable. This diatribe wouldn't have been created if what I said hasn't resonated with you. Since I never came at you with personal attacks, I can only assume the hostility emanates out of the cognitive dissonance logic brings to the mind of the believer. It hurts when the mystical is exposed as mythical. I have no desire to have this devolve into a forum pissing contest. You've been given a facsimile of an apology. Take it for what it is and stand down. Nobody disrespected yo gangsta. Talk and relax.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 02:58:45 PM
Your words, not mine. I am sorry I have made you feel bad by arguing why I choose not to believe in superstition and instead choose what is measurable.

It is foolishly arrogant to assume reality is limited to what is within man's ability to measure.

I have observed those less intelligent than myself limit their reality to what they can comprehend. I am not a genius nor am I stupid, but when I think reality is only limited to what I can observe and understand I certainly play the fools part.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
Your words, not mine. I am sorry I have made you feel bad by arguing why I choose not to believe in superstition and instead choose what is measurable.

It is foolishly arrogant to assume reality is limited to what is within man's ability to measure.

I have observed those less intelligent than myself limit their reality to what they can comprehend. I am not a genius nor am I stupid, but when I think reality is only limited to what I can observe and understand I certainly play the fools part.

The argument that the world is too big and mystical to be understood is inherently flawed. But using it as evidence against skepticism is one of the smallest, cheapest, most pathetic cop outs ever. Real talk.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 05:01:14 PM
Your words, not mine. I am sorry I have made you feel bad by arguing why I choose not to believe in superstition and instead choose what is measurable.

It is foolishly arrogant to assume reality is limited to what is within man's ability to measure.

I have observed those less intelligent than myself limit their reality to what they can comprehend. I am not a genius nor am I stupid, but when I think reality is only limited to what I can observe and understand I certainly play the fools part.

The argument that the world is too big and mystical to be understood is inherently flawed. But using it as evidence against skepticism is one of the smallest, cheapest, most pathetic cop outs ever. Real talk.

No, unreal talk.  We already know of the senses of other animals, and their relation to our own senses.  Clearly, there are worlds in existence to which we are not privy, at the sensory level (though we can hypothesise that they must be experienced by some entities).

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 05:31:30 PM
You may have prompted this, Wolfie, but it was about Pavlovian Debaters.
There are many of them, to be found, on forums. All with the same characteristics. Easily identified. Utterly predictable.
They don't understand that information-exchange can occur without bloodshed.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 05:41:41 PM
Crow stay away from matches. You're likely to immolate yourself in your army of strawmen you've created.

The senses of animals can be understood through scientific processes Cargest. The lack of magnetoception, echolocation, electroception or a lateral line in humans is no more an argument for the super natural than anything else. I am not seeing what you're alluding to with that.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 05:51:39 PM
Deliberately burying ones head in a muddy hole is not the best way of seeing.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 07:46:39 PM
The senses of animals can be understood through scientific processes Cargest. The lack of magnetoception, echolocation, electroception or a lateral line in humans is no more an argument for the super natural than anything else. I am not seeing what you're alluding to with that.

There are ways of seeing the world which we cannot access.  Can a blind person ever know the feeling of being able to see?

NHA

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 08:11:31 PM
Quote
Can a blind person ever know the feeling of being able to see?
They have low resolution sensors that they can tie into the optic nerve now btw (useless fact).

The type of sensory input isn't hugely relevant in any of these examples anyway since they all serve similar purposes - generate a feedback mechanism that allows the brain to create symbolic structure of whats around him.

Thermal vision and Z-Buffers are based off entirely different data but the output is structured in a way that is effectively the same.

Its really just a matter of creating the appropriate sensors and interfacing them with humans. The fact that animals create different abstractions of their environment doesn't mean much. We have knowledge of all sorts of things that our hardware isn't capable of directly detecting.

The whole argument boils down to: "there exists things that are currently unknown to us". No shit.


Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 08:34:27 PM
Quote
The whole argument boils down to: "there exists things that are currently unknown to us". No shit.


Who disputed this?

NHA

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 08:43:24 PM
Nobody - which is the whole point.

Have i had too much to drink and am making no sense or something? I hate how serializing thoughts is so fucking slow, annoying and error prone. I should probably just stop assuming people will pick up on implications. It only seems to work in person and even then only with native speakers of the language.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
Nothing wrong with your perceptions. I see what I assume you see, too.
But assumptions can be misleading.

Phoenix

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:06:23 PM
On my path of the left-hand, it is commendable to refrain from insults and personal attacks, if doing so is effective. In the context of this forum, I think such abstinence is rarely effective. I do not advocate anything crude--under any circumstances--but a well-shaped barb has its place in my book.

I do not believe there is any hope of this thread accomplishing much of anything that it is intended to accomplish. You're not gaining the respect of the members of this forum, nor are you persuading anyone. My big question is: why, in all your Taoism, did you not realize this?

And this is coming from someone who's made some quite influential threads in these swamps.

Communication is such a fine and subtle art, perhaps best served cold. Now I want to add in the phrase "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" and make a Pavlovian dog reference, but I can't think how to fit it in...

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:22:30 PM
Interesting perspective.
I do not aim to either persuade, or gain respect.
Why would I, from, as you say, the taoist perspective?
I leave those things to those who need them.
Although it seems to go right by many, I am interacting, here. No more than that.
I do not seek to learn, or to teach. To argue, or defend.
Watch carefully and you will notice how those who engage me often end up arguing with themselves, since there is no argument.
While others see my interaction, and interact back.
I am what I am. I do what I do. My reasons may not be readily apparent.
Why does anyone do anything?
You can't always know that.