Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
I've tried to establish why, logically, relativism is self-defeating, and that you guys probably aren't even relativists.
So, your idea of relativism is wrong. It is your isolated creation of a meaning which doesn't relate to its actual meaning.
Quote:
So your way of arguing makes no sense to me. You guys won't admit that you're either hypocrites (you take absolute positions on things when there are no absolutes), or you won't admit that yeah, some of the really bad things people have done, technically aren't bad.
I'm absolute precisely in my thoughts.
Quote:
I thought I was responding literally to every word you wrote down.
...and that is exactly what I discribed as a completely wrong way of discussion, because you take it literally, you can't get the thought. Within a thought a sentence gets its precise meaning by its context! Or, to explain it the other way round, each sentence can have a range of meanings, and only through the context within the other sentences it gets its precise meaning.
(By the way, if you don't understand this, you won't ever understand a theory, because the words in a theory at its best are like x,y,z in a big mathematical function, wherein you finally after reading the whole theory understand the meaning of x,y,z, because of the 'context' of the 'function'.)
Let's compare it to coding:
Can someone understand a line of code without knowing the other lines? Maybe, sometimes. But, at least, the more complicating this code is, the more you have to investigate this single line of code _within the context_ of the whole code and its functions. Now, imagine an AI code. Is it more complicating than intelligence in reality, or less?
[My question to others than Irish Farmer: Can you understand me? Or is it my fault that Irish Farmer cannot understand what I write?]
|
