Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Alternatively, you could go through USERCP / GROUP MEMBERSHIPS and apply officially, like tigger1430, MarcD, Freaker, HTale & treff have recently done. And on that note: welcome to the aforementioned new members :hello:

    ZarathustraX
    Thank you for the kind welcome Zarathustra!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    2) You offer sexual favours to our most dominant member at present (Calvin)
    Who says he's dominant? He's a philosophical pussycat at heart. :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderer)
    Who says he's dominant? He's a philosophical pussycat at heart. :p:
    You try and scratch my tummy and I'll kick your ass :p:
    But yeah. I'm sweet and cuddly so long as I'm not talking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    You try and scratch my tummy and I'll kick your ass :p:
    But yeah. I'm sweet and cuddly so long as I'm not talking.
    Wouldn't dream of it. Cats are mean.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    so then that makes me.... hey!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    That's a terrible generalisation! Cats can be so cuddly! :p: But they can also rip your face off
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarcD)
    That's a terrible generalisation! Cats can be so cuddly! :p: But they can also rip your face off
    Indeed. But when they're being friendly, you know its purely selfish. Its the callous way they suddenly decide they're not interested anymore and wander off. Or worse, violently assault you.

    You wouldn't think I was a cat person, would you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    lol I hate to admit it, but you're right. On the whole they are like that. I met a cat once that was all nice and friendly, let me stroke it etc., then when it reaped all the benefits, it decides to slash my hand

    I know a couple of truely nice cats that wouldn't hurt a fly though
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    You try and scratch my tummy and I'll kick your ass :p:
    But yeah. I'm sweet and cuddly so long as I'm not talking.
    :eek: :eek: :eek:

    I stuck with the cat theme for too long in your opening sentence and read 'kick' as ... something more like a cat would do... :eek:

    Oh my poor PhilSoc...*shakes head*

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Go to sleep. You've quite obviously been awake too long :p:
    And when this all began I thought being a philosophical pussycat was a good thing...

    Don't suppose anybody can turn this into a philosophical discussion can they I think we're upsetting Zara- she's fragile (like a hamster) she might never recover.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    :eek: :eek: :eek:

    I stuck with the cat theme for too long in your opening sentence and read 'kick' as ... something more like a cat would do... :eek:

    Oh my poor PhilSoc...*shakes head*

    ZarathustraX
    haha funnily enough I saw it as that as well, had to read twice to check.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    Don't suppose anybody can turn this into a philosophical discussion can they
    Should cats be deemed morally responsible for any pain they might inflict on unsuspecting (or suspecting, in the case of wanderer) persons?
    Should we attribute the violent behaviour of cats to an actual violent or evil or "mean" personality, or interpret such actions as instinctual reactions to what they perceive as potentially threatening stimuli?
    Can we say that cats hurt us 'on purpose'? Do they have any meaningful sense of purpose? ie. can they direct actions towards self-chosen goals rather than just evolutionary necessities eg. food?
    Is there any way someone could suggest a better topic than cats so we don't actually have to answer these pointless and vaguely repetitious questions?

    (Original post by Calvin)
    Zara- she's fragile (like a hamster) she might never recover.
    Excuse me? A hamster? I'll have you know, it has long been established that I am in fact a Slow Loris - if you want to go changing my official mammallian representative now, then I'll need to see some hard evidence backing up the choice...

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Should cats be deemed morally responsible for any pain they might inflict on unsuspecting (or suspecting, in the case of wanderer) persons?
    Should we attribute the violent behaviour of cats to an actual violent or evil or "mean" personality, or interpret such actions as instinctual reactions to what they perceive as potentially threatening stimuli?
    Can we say that cats hurt us 'on purpose'? Do they have any meaningful sense of purpose? ie. can they direct actions towards self-chosen goals rather than just evolutionary necessities eg. food?
    Is there any way someone could suggest a better topic than cats so we don't actually have to answer these pointless and vaguely repetitious questions?
    *Bows in admiration*

    I suggest the topic of 'My stupidity in staying up till past one on TSR when I have a driving lesson in the morning is pre-determined, and has absolutely nothing to do with sheer idiocy on my part. Discuss.'

    P.S

    Just in case you're wondering, I'm not serious. Or intoxicated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderer)
    I suggest the topic of 'My stupidity in staying up till past one on TSR when I have a driving lesson in the morning is pre-determined, and has absolutely nothing to do with sheer idiocy on my part. Discuss.'
    Well, if you're a tsr addict like the rest of us then it could be said to be in some sense 'determined' in that you've passed the stage at which you're freely choosing to come online and stay here so long...but then if we follow that line the dichotomy that you've established between pre-determination and your own sheer idiocy is no longer appropriate, since only sheer idiocy could have led you to get this addicted, thus meaning that your lack of free choice is entirely your own fault...

    Does anyone want to hear a joke? I was going to post it in the Subs Joke Thread, but it needs a more specialist audience lol...

    An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the top of one hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The engineer says: "What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are black." "Well, *some* of the sheep in Scotland are black," replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical physicist considers this for a moment and says "Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black." "Well," the philosopher responds, "on one side, anyway."

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hey wow that's pretty good for a philosopher joke. Mostly they are so obscure that I feel dumb for laughing at them. Like the anecdote about the man who wrote a letter to Russell beginning "Dear Proffessor Russell. I am a solipsist, why isn't everybody else?"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Well, if you're a tsr addict like the rest of us then it could be said to be in some sense 'determined' in that you've passed the stage at which you're freely choosing to come online and stay here so long...but then if we follow that line the dichotomy that you've established between pre-determination and your own sheer idiocy is no longer appropriate, since only sheer idiocy could have led you to get this addicted, thus meaning that your lack of free choice is entirely your own fault...

    Does anyone want to hear a joke? I was going to post it in the Subs Joke Thread, but it needs a more specialist audience lol...

    An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the top of one hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The engineer says: "What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are black." "Well, *some* of the sheep in Scotland are black," replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical physicist considers this for a moment and says "Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black." "Well," the philosopher responds, "on one side, anyway."

    ZarathustraX
    A theologian and a philosopher are arguing. The theologian says 'a philosopher is like a blindfolded man in a dark room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.' The philosopher replies 'yes, and a theologian is a like a man who claims to have found it.'

    I dispute that I could only become addicted through sheer idiocy. Its all part of an evil master-plan, as is becoming obvious from the Lurker's thread - evryone is first drawn in by one of the useful, healthy sub-forums (the bait), before being lured into the netherworlds of d and d, the societies, or, in the past, the horror that was GC. I started off using the forums to get info about oxbridge, and then *BANG* late night browsing and 'specialist' jokes ...

    So, to reiterate - I'm not an idiot. I'm a philosopher.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, I've just had a thought. Its your fault. Evil uni students, corrupting a helpless, innocent sixth-former. Well, Calvin, anyway, as I suppose Zara doesn't count yet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm old...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    I'm old...
    Ancient. But despite my obvious youth and energy, the aforementioned driving lesson is costing me a lot of money, so I'd better make the most of it, wich means heading bed-wards. Night all, stay philosophical.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ok I think I can explain this clearly now...

    Wittgensteins Paradox (and no, I'm not obssessed with the man)

    Essentially that no course of action can be determined by a rule because we can make any course of action fit with some rule or other.

    Saul Kripke gives the following example:
    Consider addition in maths. The 'Plus' function. You take two numbers, you plus them together and you get an answer. We've all done it.

    We learn how the plus function works by deriving a rule from examples given by a teacher. The teacher gives us various numbers and performs this addition function and gives us the answer and from this we derive the rule for how addition works. Then we go off and add things together and enjoy ourselves.
    Notably though we are learning this rule from having seen only a finite number of examples, we haven't been given the answer for every possible set of additions.


    Now as you've only performed so many additions it must be the case that there is one number bigger than any other you've ever added before. For the sake of simplicity imagine the biggest addition you've ever performed is 253+12=265
    But then we can argue the following: in the past you haven't been performing addition, instead you've been performing some other function. This other function is exactly the same as addition except if one of the numbers you are adding is over 253 then the answer to your sum will always be 5. Call this new function Quuaddition.
    So 4 quus 7 equals 11. But 291 quus 62 equals 5.

    The Paradox is this: Wittgenstein argues there is no fact you can point to to show that in the past you have been performing addition rather than quuaddition.
    (the paradoxical part being that this seems really obviously wrong)


    (This essentially boils down to the statement made at the beginning. You can't make adding conform to a rule because all finite examples of behaviour accord equally well with some other rule. Similarly you can invent a rule to explain anything, even something totally random.)

    The challenge then is: Can you prove that in the past you have been doing addition rather than quuaddition?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: September 14, 2010

University open days

  • Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
  • Staffordshire University
    Nursing and Midwifery Undergraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
  • Teesside University
    Undergraduate open day Undergraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.