Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 10

We need Dashby to start something again...

What happened to Tripod the 3 legged dog?

BTW I scare myself sometimes, I didn't know Dashby had 3 kids...

Dashby is sick...I mean that in an incestuous way...

Thank you, oh great teacher! You have set me straight.

I agree with Steve, time to move this into the off topic forum, but I think we've run this one into the ground, and will never agree, so no need to waste any more of each other's time. Like the rest of the world, you have your belief system, I have mine, neither of which is absolutely right or wrong.

Btw delta, excuse my ignorance but one of my good friends was a philosophy major, and always called himself "philosopher hammer". Seeing your icon as hammers, does that have anything to do with you?

BTW this has been fun!

Maybe your friend is a marxist...

I hope you know the origin of my avatar?

I doubt it, he did double in economics. Well on second thought, he's a pretty confused guy....

No, explain to me, I am all ears. (avatar that is)

Seriously, EDR, are you going to stop believing 1+1=2? Or a=b if b=a? Some assumptions must be made. Are you going to doubt the existence of yourself? Skepticism lead nowhere.

Go to your local blockbuster and get the following two things:

CD: Pink Floyd - The Wall
DVD: Pink Floyd - The Wall

To understand my signature as well, get this too:
CD: Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon

Since he said marxism, i believe thats the icon for it since Hammer probably represent the worker class. With that we can assume delta to be a socialist or communist at extreme!! jkjk

Dude, if you are a 11year old kid from China, aren't you supposed to be a firm believer in communism and wearing your red tie everyday?

Oh no here we go, topic #3. Just kidding. As previously stated, I have a music degree, guitar was my major! I was a session player for several years before becoming more business oriented. I've played everything inbetween the most extreme metal to raw country blue grass. Thus, pop, rock, jazz, R&B, new age, fusion, etc. I'm well aware of Floyd. Although as my *knowledge* grew, I got more into the jazz, fusion, R&B and funk - syncopated and challenging-to-play stuff. I found it more interesting than straight ahead 8th note rock stuff on the 2/4.

And I am still struggling with my guitar solos! Hehe...I was just answering X's question. Anyhow I don't listen to pink floyd for their sound, I do for their words. Roger Waters is a poet, for sure. My favorite kind of music is progressive rock. While one reason is their unorthodox, sophisticated and jazzy styles, I also like them for their expressive, poetic and profound lyrics.

Once again, you are taking things to an extreme position. You went from vague syntax, semantics and communication rules to 1+1=2? You really do stretch and do anything you can to win the argument even if it means looking foolish - hence my previous comment about twisting things.

I do not exist ... 1+1=1, and b and a are two separate entities. B is b, and a is a. That's an old confucious riddle. HA!

Also, you being as *logical* as you are, are naturally more of a skeptic than I am. Get it straight. I'm open to *all things are possible*, while I bet you're atheist, or agnostic at best. Who is more skeptical?

It's rigid, logical thinking (when things can't be proven in man's scientific terms) that leads the way of the skeptics. That's you, not me.

****, I'm late, I really do have to go to a meeting. I'm addicted to you guys. Scary. Here's one for philosophy ...

Stop the hammering?! What does it all mean! hehehe

I, being rigid, well-defined, and logical, assume what must be assumed, and doubt what does not have to be assumed. Have you heard about the pythagorean paradox? That decision, made centuries ago, shaped modern mathematics and many other things. But at that time, it seemed to them like the flip of a coin. There are things that, if doubted, can lead nowhere. There are also things, that if doubted, can lead to new discoveries. (Is there a better example than the Christian doctrine?) Being one to truly able to reason, one must first learn to discern the two. (You guessed right about my religious status).

The evidence before the court is
Incontrivertable, there's no need for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penaltie of law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers.
Tear down the wall!

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltawalkerl 1. And all the teachings of skepticism, are perfectly reasonable. But what can we make of it? Nothing but a dead-end 2. Skepticism leads nowhere 3. (You guessed right about my religious status).

Talk about paradox and twisting. By default, as an admitted atheist or agnostic yourself, you are skeptical about possibilities that cannot be explained by current science. All of those things that defy *normal* physics ("outlined items"), like super human strength in times of great stress, levitation, the possibility of their being a superior entity that created us, people walking on fire, Indian Yogi's slowing their heart rate to virtually nothing, Yogi's putting knives through their arms, removing it and no blood coming from the wound, etc. are things I bet *you* do not believe in. Therefore, once again, by default, you are a skeptic. If you can't see it and define it as a=b, or 1+1=2 then you do not accept it as truth. Sad.

Yet, as per your own words, "Skepticism is nothing but a dead end and leads nowhere."

How's that for twisting, oh great teacher?

Wasn't it you who wrote:

OK, Delta, I've just put some logic in front of you. You're the skeptic - no doubt about it. Yet, I already know you will not accept this *logic* that has been placed before you, via your own words. I cannot wait to see what incredibly amazing response you will craft to get out of this one - as always you try very hard. Don't let me down, but just don't keep making a fool of yourself at the same time.

P.S., and with respect to your claims that assumptions MUST be made to allow humanity to progress, then let's ASSUME all of those outlined items above are *possible* (many of which have already been documented), even though man has yet to put into an explanation of non-disputable words and formulas. As per your words, if we make that assumption that they are possible, we will eventually progress and figure it out, even if through a few mistakes on the way. OK, so then, why are you a non-spiritual person?

Aren't you relying only on what is *proven* as logical, and not making any assumptions yourself about what you can't yet explain? Aren't you contradicting yourself there? I think so!

P.S.S. You also wrote:

Quote:

"EDR, I am trying to argue with very strict logic, inambiguous semantics and syntax. I realize that most people cannot argue in this way. I am used to arguing using well-defined statements that have only one intrepretation."

Seems like I interpreted your above statements very logically, but not how you expected, huh? How was I able to do that with your choice of non-disputable language?

The earth is flat!

Ok, this really needs to go on the off-topic forum.

Yay, a philosophical and religious argument! I used to argue these all the time at www.infidels.org. You can guess where they stand on spirituality.

Anyway, EDR, I'm not too sure if you know what you're saying there, but it looks to me to be a non-sequitur fallacy - that is, your conclusion (that it's illogical for Delta to be non-spiritual) does not follow from your premises (i.e. your entire argument about making assumptions).

By definition, spirituality comes from not knowing what happens, unable to predict the behavior of something. Science is the study of repetition - of what happens under a set of rules (physics) and how we can take advantage of these rules. Spirituality is a belief in what we can't explain, what we have no control over, so it's something we can't predict.

Delta's stance is what I typically see of atheists and agnostics (myself included) - it's a "wait and see" approach, waiting for evidence. What you may be suggesting, EDR, is that an non-spiritual's worldview requires that everything be explained. That's really not the case - there's no shame in admitting that we don't know something, and we may not know how or why it works. That does not mean we have to believe in it, or abstract it away into "spirituality".

Unfortunately, what you posted above isn't really "logic", per se. I still can't find the logical connections that would give you the upper hand over Delta; you do have a few hidden assumptions that I've tried to make clear here. I guess it's easier for me since I'm used to this type of religious/philsophical/spiritual argument, but you really should try to learn the model that we're arguing in before trying to turn the tables on Delta. To argue, we must have common ground - we must establish something we all can agree to, otherwise it's a mess with people trying to debunk others' assumptions (ahem such as now). Maybe we can start there? And move this thread elsewhere?

wow