tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8142699447172707033..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: The Most Boring AtheistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21814737661804546042012-01-04T01:29:28.682-05:002012-01-04T01:29:28.682-05:00Hey Melville
What's the wrong with Lady Gaga?...Hey Melville<br /><br />What's the wrong with Lady Gaga?Eohippusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13793769056205116002012-01-03T20:39:15.690-05:002012-01-03T20:39:15.690-05:00"If you find me "troubling", Melvil..."If you find <b>me</b> "troubling", Melville..."<br /><br />Oh, I don't find you particularly troubling. After all, everyone is troubling in one way or another. I'm sure I am. That's why I wrote: "I noticed something troubling <b>about</b> you, Jeff".<br /><br />Anonymous shared a cool video which showed a type of locomotion which is radically different from what he's ever seen. I'm waiting for Jeff to insist that Anonymous define "radically." Meanwhile, the following real-life beetle larva moves in a way that's not "too" different: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQsx4xLqKMMelvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7189375369669897852012-01-03T19:09:30.177-05:002012-01-03T19:09:30.177-05:00The link at 2:53 Jan 2 is in response to Melville&...The link at 2:53 Jan 2 is in response to Melville's comment:<br /><br />"As for the claim that only a living brain can invent radically new ideas, I'm trying to think of a counter-example. Can you?"<br /><br />(but I see Jeff has smuggled the link into a relevant thread two or three posts ago).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5997990722461731622012-01-03T16:10:20.946-05:002012-01-03T16:10:20.946-05:00I posit that the real reason you gave up on Free I...<i> I posit that the real reason you gave up on Free Inquiry is not mainly because it's boring, but because Hoffman criticized your brand of atheist to the point of discomfort.</i><br /><br />Oh, I forgot to add -- I don't think Hoffman wrote much about the New Atheists when he was Associate Editor for <i>Free Inquiry</i> - at least nothing that I remember. But I could be wrong.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27059294030492928092012-01-03T15:50:46.556-05:002012-01-03T15:50:46.556-05:00Addendum: Jerry Coyne gives Hoffman the 2011 Moone...Addendum: <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/winner-of-the-mooney-award-for-accommodationist-of-the-year-r-joseph-hoffman/" rel="nofollow">Jerry Coyne gives Hoffman the 2011 Mooney Award</a>Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75573745623539751312012-01-03T14:53:41.303-05:002012-01-03T14:53:41.303-05:00I haven't seen a more radically different meth...I haven't seen a more radically different method of locomotion than this computer generated one:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUXc6mckGLEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36548718512943290232012-01-03T14:30:03.924-05:002012-01-03T14:30:03.924-05:00Most people would find ambiguity a fault in themse...Most people would find ambiguity a fault in themselves, not in others.<br /><br />If you find me "troubling", Melville, you're free to go elsewhere. So far you haven't contributed anything worthwhile here.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25436614075640668432012-01-03T13:54:03.651-05:002012-01-03T13:54:03.651-05:00Lady Gaga's popularity has also grown. But tha...Lady Gaga's popularity has also grown. But that's merely an indictment of American society.<br /><br />I noticed something troubling about you, Jeff. When someone writes something that can be interpreted in two different ways, you choose to interpret it in the way that makes the person look dumb. (Or perhaps you don't even notice a second interpretation.)<br /><br />I offered two interpetations of the word "displaced" in the sentence "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books". One which makes the sentence probably true, and one which makes it probably not true. You insisted on the latter. <br /><br />Now, you then go on to say, "academic journals are already on the internet, and many - perhaps most - academic libraries have already ended their print subscriptions, replacing them with electronic ones." This is obviously true, and you were wrong in jumping to conclusions by accusing me of not knowing that. But again, there's two ways to interpet "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books". One way is: "the Internet will never eliminate refereed academic journals and books with <i>un</i>-refereed, online, academic journals and books". Another way is "the Internet will never replace refereed academic journals and books with refereed academic journals and books <i>that are simply online</i>". Again, you chose the interpretation, the latter one, for no good reason except to make me and Bunge look dumb. I think Bunge meant the former interpretation.<br /><br />Finally, the phrase "Only a living brain ... can invent radically new ideas" can also be interpeted two different ways. One is: "Only a living brain ... is <i>currently</i> able to invent radically new ideas, and is likely to remain that way" and another is "Only a living brain will ever be able to invent radically new ideas, ever!" If Bunge meant the former, then I'd wager he's correct. If he meant the latter, (can you prove he did?), then it sounds like like an iffy claim. Not "laughable", but iffy.<br /><br />Now if I can jump to tentative conclusions myself, I posit that the real reason you gave up on Free Inquiry is not mainly because it's boring, but because Hoffman criticized your brand of atheist to the point of discomfort.Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60784791531836658202012-01-03T05:53:26.444-05:002012-01-03T05:53:26.444-05:00But if defined as "to take the place of, supp...<i>But if defined as "to take the place of, supplant," then Bunge is probably right.</i><br /><br />You don't know a damn thing about academic journals, do you? Many - perhaps most - academic journals are <i>already</i> on the internet, and many - perhaps most - academic libraries have already ended their print subscriptions, replacing them with electronic ones.<br /><br />Why do you comment over and over about things you know nothing about?<br /><br /><i>I'm trying to think of a counter-example</i><br /><br />Without connected brain cells, you're going to have a long wait.<br /><br /><i>"I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing."</i><br /><br />And yet its popularity is growing, as evidenced by the numbers. I guess that means it <i>is</i> appealing, at least if you're not seething with envy.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56847627276756086572012-01-02T21:25:15.368-05:002012-01-02T21:25:15.368-05:00"the Internet will never displace refereed ac..."the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books".<br />(The last one seems preposterous today, but was ridiculous even 14 years ago.)"<br /><br />You realize that "displace" has at least two different definitions. If defined as "To move or shift from the usual place or position", then you're right, it would seem preposterous. But if defined as "to take the place of, supplant," then Bunge is probably right.<br /><br />I googled on "algorithms to design algorithms" and found some hits, so I imagine Bunge was wrong on that count. As for the claim that only a living brain can invent radically new ideas, I'm trying to think of a counter-example. Can you? I suspect that you'll demand an exact definition of "radically new." (A definition, which, you should have already determined before you made your original comment.)<br /><br />Finally, Hoffman's comment, as much as it sticks in your craw, is probably true, even if he <i>is</i> jealous of Hitchens, Dawkins, etc: "I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing."Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27426029557214785122012-01-02T12:09:06.976-05:002012-01-02T12:09:06.976-05:00Free Inquiry was boring long before Hoffman got th...Free Inquiry was boring long before Hoffman got there. I always blamed Paul Kurtz.Gary Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02677612402256498355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82085103200241412412012-01-02T10:46:13.209-05:002012-01-02T10:46:13.209-05:00...and also Russell Blackford and Ophelia Benson. ......and also Russell Blackford and Ophelia Benson. I think it's time for us to subscribe.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.com