Did someone2 ever get around to making a point or asking a question?
Terry
Kermit
> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
out of the way...
Kermit
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
Far from it, but give him time :)
--
Bob.
bal...@devnull.org
And then he finally said something along the lines of: "I am just
going outside and may be some time."
It's been more than eight hours now...
Howard
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
John Wilkins
Maybe he's got the 'flu.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
SJAB1958
> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
call me denser than a super-cooled BEC, but who are you on about?
richardal...@googlemail.com
His current debating mode is to propose an hypothetical machine whose
behaviour can be explained by "node interactions" and ask if it's
behaviour can be explained by "node interactions".
I can't see the point of this myself, but perhaps he will reveal the
great hidden truth which can be obtained by stating the bleedin'
obvious.
Perhaps the answer is that his intellectual capacity is so far beyond
ours that we can never understand him.
Somehow I doubt it.
RF
Cheezits
> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
You're new around here, aren't you? :-D
I'm waiting for him to get around to answering questions.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Inez
If you haven't been following any of his other threads, his point is
as follows*
Assume the unstated assumption that "experience" is a ghostly
otherworld entity hovering over the brain in a metaphysical fashion
If "nodes" act the way that you would "expect" them to act given the
laws of nature and the input to the node, this means that this ghostly
"experience" entity is not effecting them, thus experiences don't
effect behavior. This is clearly absurd (in his view) so you are
supposed to have an epiphany and realize that behavior must be
effected by this ghostly magic experience world and that brains must
not follow "the laws of physics" and therefore the God of the Bible
exists, evolution is wrong, and the moon is made of green cheese.
If you say that you don't believe that experience is a ghostly
otherworld entity but rather an actual factual physical entity, his
face scrunches up like that of a mole staring into the sun and he says
something like "what does that mean? That you believe that experience
doesn't effect behavior?"
-------
*If he were to reply to this post he would deny my explanation without
correction or comment past calling me a
nitwit.
Richard Harter
wrote:
I was so disappointed. I think he really wanted to debate me, but just
couldn't bring himself to do it. Do you suppose it was something I
said?
Throwback
I haven't read the entire thread, but it looked like someone
wanted to debate the writers of some website related
to the group on an issue, and a bunch of people came
in and hijacked the thread.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On 20 Apr 2007 20:33:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com>
I think it was the pink tutu. He hadn't worn it in ages, and he
thought it made him look fat.
Chris
Mark VandeWettering
How can anyone "hijack" a thread? One is always free to post, and one
is always free to ignore whatever responses you choose. Nobody has a
gun to your head, forcing you to carry your discussion where they choose.
Mark
Throwback
Don't know. Maybe careful scientific observation
of the thread in question will answer your question ...
loua...@yahoo.com
'bunch of people' = 'many contributors to the website he claimed he
wanted to debate about' in this case. Some people just can't take yes
for an answer.
Who was it, back in the Old Days, that offered to debate pro-
creationism and later on (when he was losing) on the grounds that
while his opponent had accepted his challenge, he hadn't _accepted his
opponent's acceptance_ of the challenge? I think this was pre-Nowhere
Man.
loua...@yahoo.com
He hasn't replied in the impromptu debate since I asked him a direct
question with the concept "please present your proof" in it. These are
the headers google groups gives me on that msg.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com>
Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:56:13 -0700
Local: Fri, Apr 20 2007 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
(end quote)
However since that was only Friday, I feel I should wait at least
until Monday before even considering the "Brave Sir Robin" song.
Louann, who has some new moves for the accompanying dance.
Inez
What you need to take into account is someone2 is fresh from another
thread (called "Materialist Evolutionists" I believe) In which he
offered the same challenge, although not specifically to the keepers
of the T.O archive. He failed to make his point there and has
apparently run low on people who take him seriously.
Lexington Victoria-Rice
> <bal...@devnull.org> wrote:
>
>> Kermit wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>>> Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
>>> wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
>>> out of the way...
>>>
>>> Kermit
>>
>> And then he finally said something along the lines of: "I am just
>> going outside and may be some time."
>>
>> It's been more than eight hours now...
>>
> Maybe he's got the 'flu.
I think he went out for a pack of smokes.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
eerok
> John Wilkins wrote:
>> <bal...@devnull.org> wrote:
>>> Kermit wrote:
>>>> On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>>>> Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
>>>> wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
>>>> out of the way...
>>> And then he finally said something along the lines of: "I am just
>>> going outside and may be some time."
>>>
>>> It's been more than eight hours now...
>>>
>> Maybe he's got the 'flu.
> I think he went out for a pack of smokes.
And got hit by a truck. (It's not wise to slack off when
you're doing God's work ...)
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
eerok
[...]
> I haven't read the entire thread, but it looked like someone
> wanted to debate the writers of some website related
> to the group on an issue, and a bunch of people came
> in and hijacked the thread.
Well, I *did* read the entire thread. The guy couldn't get
the saddle on his dead horse, so he wandered off on foot.
Harvest Dancer
I seem to recall something similar to that with regards to a bet that
was offered, accepted, but the acceptance wasn't accepted or some
bullshit like that.
If it's the same one, a non-cashable check was originall offered as
payment of the bet.
Jason Harvestdancer
Gerry Murphy
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177178656.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> What you need to take into account is someone2 is fresh from another
> thread (called "Materialist Evolutionists" I believe) In which he
> offered the same challenge, although not specifically to the keepers
> of the T.O archive. He failed to make his point there and has
> apparently run low on people who take him seriously.
<Gasp!> You mean somewhere at some time there was someone (else)
who took him seriously? The mind boggles. 8-}
John Drayton
> On Apr 21, 2:25 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:33 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>
> > > Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
> > > wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
> > > out of the way...
>
> > > Kermit
>
> > His current debating mode is to propose an hypothetical machine whose
> > behaviour can be explained by "node interactions" and ask if it's
> > behaviour can be explained by "node interactions".
>
> > I can't see the point of this myself, but perhaps he will reveal the
> > great hidden truth which can be obtained by stating the bleedin'
> > obvious.
>
> > Perhaps the answer is that his intellectual capacity is so far beyond
> > ours that we can never understand him.
>
> > Somehow I doubt it.
>
> If you haven't been following any of his other threads, his point is
> as follows*
>
> Assume the unstated assumption that "experience" is a ghostly
> otherworld entity hovering over the brain in a metaphysical fashion
That's it in a nutshell - he's a total dualist, and doesn't
even realise it.
In some ways it's hard to blame him: the nature of
subjective human experience is such that it's easy
(maybe even natural) IMO to perceive it as a
seperately existing entity in its own right.
To my mind it's a bit like looking at a picture of a
person. It's really just a bunch of colours on a canvas
but we perceive a "person" entity which is depicted.
The difference is that we have plenty of experience
with pictures and know that that this "perceived"
person is really a figment of our imagination.
The amusing thing about someone is that his
robot analogy has this basic dualist assumption,
and when this is poined out to him he just assumes
that the other person "doesn't get it", and restates
his robot analogy.
> If "nodes" act the way that you would "expect" them to act given the
> laws of nature and the input to the node, this means that this ghostly
> "experience" entity is not effecting them, thus experiences don't
> effect behavior. This is clearly absurd (in his view) so you are
> supposed to have an epiphany and realize that behavior must be
> effected by this ghostly magic experience world and that brains must
> not follow "the laws of physics" and therefore the God of the Bible
> exists, evolution is wrong, and the moon is made of green cheese.
>
> If you say that you don't believe that experience is a ghostly
> otherworld entity but rather an actual factual physical entity, his
> face scrunches up like that of a mole staring into the sun and he says
> something like "what does that mean? That you believe that experience
> doesn't effect behavior?"
I think he is also getting frustrated because he believes
he has a king-hit "freewill" argument waiting in the wings.
But unfortunately noone has played along enough for him
to use it.
>
> -------
> *If he were to reply to this post he would deny my explanation without
> correction or comment past calling me a
> nitwit.
--
John Drayton
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177177894.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
John 'nameless' McCoy is the gentleman in question.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.