Why Sciforums Mods Take Objection To My Using the Term "Reality"

It occurred to me that the sciforums moderators of low intelligence as opposed to the one very intelligent mod, take objection to my use of the term "Reality" any further because it defies conformity. They would prefer to allow the ignorant, vile and mediocre thoughts of their fellow atheistic dunces reign supreme. Hence, sciforums continues to maintain the illusion of a mutual respect between originality and conformity. For instance, JamesR and Bells would prefer to listen to the likes of Daecon and Sarkus whenever dealing out infraction points or banning me for writing on CTMU. But tell me, how else am I to reach a logically sound argument on God without bringing up this topic? Am I supposed to learn advanced logic from scratch while abandoning the CTMU? Obviously, willing me to make less visible my threads on this topic is a dick move. Who are you deem what is best? Speaking of which, JamesR will only continue to do what he does best, label and censor unique and superior thought due to its failing to fall neatly inside the realm of his simple understanding. And Bells will continue to do what she does best, be the opposite of original. They would rather flex their muscle as authority figures and obtain a shallow victory than to allow the best of the best to express themselves.

Since when did sciforums become an institution?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have not read all your posts, or even entered all your threads. This is a provisional assessment, but I believe it is reasonably close to accurate.

1. Your posts are badly written. You ramble, you lack precision, you fail to define your terms, you do not create a sound structure, etc. If a subordinate wrote posts of this quality for me I should soon be issuing a warning letter.

2. There is no original thinking evident in your posts.

3. Some of your observations/assertions are wrong, others are merely silly.

4. Your emotional attacks should embarrass you. They certainly make me cringe.

Conclusion: You have quite misunderstood why you are dealt with as you are. It's because you behave like a dickhead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My apologies for calling you names Ophiolite. I will refrain from personal attacks in the future. The learning process is endless.

Coolz?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I once read this:

The advanced people discuss ideas.
The average people discuss events.
The simple people discuss other people.

There surely are plenty of exceptions, but I think in a science forum, you first of all want to discuss ideas, and last, the people.

You must split the person from the idea - even the biggest asshole can have a brilliant idea. The idea doesn't get worse, because it was created by an asshole. If you say "it must be a bad idea, because it comes from a bad person" you are wrong. This conclusion is not right in general.

So, personal attacks are the wrong level for a scientific discussion. You want to attack an idea (if you don't like the idea) but you don't want to attack a person.

You can turn it the other way too - if you attack the person instead of the idea, you'll be seen as unable to fight the idea itself, and that you try to aim at an easier target instead, even if it's the wrong target. If people realize this, you'll just have embarrassed yourself.

 

Spellbound, the problem is that you are an obsessive bore, whose countless "Reality is" posts are mutually contradictory or meaningless and thus of no interest, most of the time. The moderators of the forum have a duty to do some housekeeping, to keep the site interesting for the rest of us normal people to read.

If you want to post on another subject (i.e. not just more sodding "Reality is..." in disguise), ideally showing some original thought of your own, I'm sure we'll be happy to read that. But understand this: the more monomaniacal you appear, the less people are likely to take seriously anything you say. Nobody has a duty to listen patiently to every nutter on the street corner. If you don't want to be written off as a nutter, it's up to you to show you can make contributions with some variety in them.

 

"Why Sciforums Mods Take Objection To My Using the Term "Reality""
That's the reality around here, but you keep coming back, so you must love it here.
Oh dear, it's that poor persecuted lone voice in the wildnest again.
Your turn...and so on and on and on. Boring boring
To those free thinkers and open minded who will jump to his defence to post in the right place...ufo

 

I think that most of the Sciforums moderators seem reasonably intelligent. I certainly have my own complaints about some of them on occasion, but it doesn't concern their native intelligence.

They quite rightly take exception because you never say anything about reality that makes any sense.

You seem to use 'reality' as an alternative word for your pantheistic concept of 'God'. So right out of the gate, your posts come across to other people like religious preaching.

You often accompany your expressions of your cosmic faith with what appears to be quasi-scientific gibberish often cut-and-pasted from other discussion boards.

Or else you tell us once again about your mystical/psychiatric experiences.

Nothing hangs together coherently, there's never any plausible reason given for anything you say.

At least what we write sometimes make sense.

If you want to learn about logic, you need to actually study logic. You don't need to enroll in a university (though having a teacher certainly helps). You can teach yourself. There is no end of instructional material on logic on the internet, including entire textbooks. If you want, I'll give you links to some that I like.

Regarding 'advanced logic', you need to learn basic propositional and predicate logic first. Then you can advance into things like philosophical logic, completeness and consistency proofs, model theory and into the various non-standard logics that have proliferated in the last few decades. It's difficult but rewarding (and most of it is beyond my pay-grade).

'The CTMU' isn't going to teach you logic. My impression is that its author tries to hide the lack of logical coherence in his rhetoric behind a wall of almost incomprehensible technical vocabulary that he trusts that none of his readers will fully understand. So readers can't ever be sure if their difficulty understanding is due to logical deficiencies in the argument itself, or due to their own failure to understand the concepts. It's an intellectual con-game in my opinion.

I think that the readers of Sciforums have reached a general conclusion (perhaps the only thing that everyone here agrees on) that 'the CTMU' is almost certainly bullshit. They don't enjoy having bullshit inflicted on them ceaselessly, and don't want the science and philosophy fora (bad as they are) to become filled with it. But on the tiny likelihood that it isn't bullshit, they want to give you a place to explain and defend your views if you can. That's the 'reality' thread. If you can make a convincing case there. you will probably be welcome to post your stuff elsewhere.

If nobody can understand it, how can anyone be sure that it's "unique and superior"? You need to try to explain your ideas in a way that other people can understand.

 

Here's an introductory logic textbook in pdf format called 'For All X', written by a State University of New York professor. It is a little peculiar in my opinion because it addresses formal semantics/model theory before it addresses proofs. (I wouldn't do it that way.)

http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

And here's one out of Cambridge University entitled 'Teach Yourself Logic'. This one seems to be an introduction to logic for new graduate students in philosophy who didn't study the subject during their undergraduate years. So it addresses the introductory material from a more sophisticated viewpoint, I guess, showing how the advanced topics develop out of it. It's more of an outline and a study-guide than a text, and it covers a lot of material very quickly. This one has lots of bibliographic reading suggestions for follow-on reading in various topics covered.

http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/TeachYourselfLogic2016.pdf

And here's a more advanced text to be read after one has the material in 'For All X' under one's belt, suitable for a second logic course perhaps. It emphasizes material of interest to computer science, such as computability and Turing machines, but is suitable for philosophers as well. This one is called the 'Open Logic Textbook' and it comes out of the U. of Calgary.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rzach/static/open-logic/open-logic-complete.pdf

 

Thank you Yazata.

I will be studying this all week.

 

Reported.

Not a lot of point in reading beyond that. This is clearly a rant, disguised as a discussion.

 

Actually, if you've noticed, the issue hasn't been with the title of your thread, but rather the content.

Now, if you legitimately have a complaint about how things have been handled (which, near as I can tell, has been in accordance with established SciForums rules), then I suggest you PM James R or Plazma Inferno directly, rather than bemoaning it on the open forums.