Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   and these people vote?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 86 (717790)
02-01-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by dronestar
01-31-2014 3:06 PM


dronester writes:
Yes, that may be true regarding the SAME exact event....
Are you admitting that people have different reactions to the same event and still claiming that they will have the same reaction to different events?
George and Jim have different reactions to A. George and Jim have different reactions to B. George prefers A, Jim prefers B. You seem to be claiming that George and Jim will objectively agree on either A or B.
dronester writes:
1. vanilla ice cream
or
2. dog-crap ice cream with broken glass shards (Baskin-Robbins unsuccessful 32nd flavor) ?
The problem here is that you're pre-loading your example. You have already decided that climbing Mount Everest is "more rewarding" than not climbing Mount Everest and you've deliberately picked an example where you know which choice most people would make. But you don't know which choice people would make in the Mount Everest or not Mount Everest scenario.
A more honest example would be between chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream, or between visiting Paris or New York.
dronester writes:
My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.
Your argument is about subjective experiences.
dronester writes:
If you want to equivocate and argue that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep/enlightening/rewarding/valuable as summiting Mount Everest, WITHOUT ADDING MORE QUALIFIERS such as "to a two-year-old," then be my guest.
You're the one who's adding the qualifiers. The whole example is yours and you've deliberately made it seem like an obvious choice.
But unless you assume that climbing Mount Everest is "more rewarding", you can not conclude that it is.
Which is "more rewarding"? Climbing Mount Everest or climbing Mount Whitney? Or climbing Pike's Peak? Or climbing the Empire State Building? Put them in objective order of rewardingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dronestar, posted 01-31-2014 3:06 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2014 3:51 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 77 of 86 (718120)
02-04-2014 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
02-01-2014 11:02 AM


Hey Ringo, the following augmented Seinfeld dialogue reminds me of our current debate:
quote:
JERRY: Elaine, the mollusk travels from Alaska to Chile just for a shot at another mollusk. You think you're any better?
ELAINE: Yes! I do think I AM better than the mollusk!
RINGO: Well Elaine, suppose the mollusk is a really exceptional speaker?
RingO writes:
Are you admitting that people have different reactions to the same event and still claiming that they will have the same reaction to different events?
Ringo, sigh, let me re-reiterate my argument to you, again . . .
For CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.
RingO writes:
The problem here is that you're pre-loading your example. You have already decided that climbing Mount Everest is "more rewarding" than not climbing Mount Everest and you've deliberately picked an example where you know which choice most people would make.
Well duh. I am clearly showing you that:
For CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.
RingO writes:
You're the one who's adding the qualifiers.
Chuckle! No, since my proposition is original and unaltered, I have not ADDED qualifiers. The qualifier "to a two-year old" is YOUR desperately ADDED qualifier.
RingO writes:
The whole example is yours and you've deliberately made it seem like an obvious choice.
Chuckle! Yeaaah, . . . the SEEMINGLY obvious choice looks and acts a whole lot like the ACTUAL obvious choice, don't it?
RingO writes:
But unless you assume that climbing Mount Everest is "more rewarding", you can not conclude that it is.
. . . THAN crapping one's pants, yes, I and 99.99% concludes this. C O M P A R A T I V E objective experiences. Just as I am assuming that eating dog-crap ice cream is less rewarding than eating vanilla ice cream. (Wow, a really crazy random assumption based on life's experiences, right?)
RingO writes:
Which is "more rewarding"? Climbing Mount Everest or climbing Mount Whitney? Or climbing Pike's Peak? Or climbing the Empire State Building?
Thanks for offering me more off-topic assignments to work on but I'll just stick to the argument I've made in this thread . . .
When comparing CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. For example: Nearly everybody believes that eating dog-crap ice cream is less rewarding than eating vanilla ice cream.
To help you focus, I'll keep on including my argument in each of my posts . . .
quote:
a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 02-01-2014 11:02 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 02-05-2014 10:51 AM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 86 (718195)
02-05-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by dronestar
02-04-2014 3:51 PM


dronester writes:
For CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same.
The word "certain" didn't appear until Message 73 and doesn't appear anywhere else in your messages except this one. *cough* moving goalposts *cough*
dronester writes:
No, since my proposition is original and unaltered, I have not ADDED qualifiers.
You added "certain".
Yes, you can add "certain" to pre-filter your results and get the answer you want.
dronester writes:
My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.
And I have asked you how you compare experiences objectively. Which is "more rewarding"? Climbing Mount Everest or climbing Mount Whitney? Or climbing Pike's Peak? Or climbing the Empire State Building?
What criteria do you use? Height? Slope?
Or are those examples too "uncertain" for you to answer the question honestly?
dronrster writes:
a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest...
By what criteria do you assess your own example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2014 3:51 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-06-2014 4:33 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 79 of 86 (718436)
02-06-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
02-05-2014 10:51 AM


RingO writes:
The word "certain" didn't appear until Message 73 and doesn't appear anywhere else in your messages except this one. *cough* moving goalposts *cough*
*cough* Hysterically funny *cough*
[Off-topic. Like the Godwin Rule, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches, also true that as an online discussion grows longer the losing party will desperately seek out meaningless technical counter-points. I call this the "Crashfrog Rule"]
Yesss Ringo, I concede, I didn't actually use the word "certain" until message 73. Wow, a great counter-point! This really moves the discussion forward and changes my entire argument! . . .
But from the beginning, Message 24, I had been very consistent that I was arguing about a specific experience, summiting Everest. AND back in Message 26, I conceded there could be exceptions ("the rule and the exception"), thus acknowledging I am talking about specific experiences. AND in Message 32 I contrasted/identified specific experiences about Everest to Modulous. AND in repeated posts I wrote:
quote:
a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.
How many times have I clearly posted my specific argument Ringo? Besides the QUANTITIES of posts, notice inside the text the re-re-re-repeating words "ALMOST always." Yet another very clear indicator that I am not talking about "every" experience, but rather specific experiences. I haven't been exactly shy or unclear about my argument, have I? But, if it will help salve your bruised ego, then, yes, technically you are correct, I concede I didn't actually use the word "certain" from the very beginning. Kudos, you sure showed me.
RingO writes:
And I have asked you how you compare experiences objectively. Which is "more rewarding"? Climbing Mount Everest or climbing Mount Whitney? Or climbing Pike's Peak? Or climbing the Empire State Building? What criteria do you use? Height? Slope?
RingO writes:
What criteria do you use?
RingO writes:
What . . . ?
Amazingly, you make the time and effort to seek out a meaningless technical counter-point about a single word. But, simultaneously disregard my entire opus of posts showing you, with examples, what criteria I used to support my argument.
Amazing!
It's as if I wrote nothing at all. I can hear your upcoming complaint already, "Would it kill you to re-reply all your dozens of posts?"
I can only explain myself so many different ways. Your endlessly meandering off-topic asides and questions, culminating in a desperate effort to find the smallest technical counterpoint ("certain"?), has actually served to strengthen my argument over time. And quite frankly, it was just an ordinary self-evident statement, it practically delivered itself (here AGAIN):
quote:
a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.
If you want to continue equivocating and arguing that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep/enlightening/rewarding/valuable as summiting Mount Everest, WITHOUT ADDING MORE QUALIFIERS such as "to a two-year-old," then be my guest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 02-05-2014 10:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 02-07-2014 10:50 AM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 80 of 86 (718529)
02-07-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dronestar
02-06-2014 4:33 PM


dronester writes:
I haven't been exactly shy or unclear about my argument, have I?
You've been pretty shy about explaining why you think individual experiences can be assessed objectively. What criteria do you use? If I missed your answer in the flurry of "comedy", feel free to repeat yourself.
Just answer the questions: How do you measure the quality of an experience? Is climbing Mount Everest "more rewarding" than climbing Mount Whitney or Pike's Peak or the Empire State Building? If so, on what basis? Height? Slope?
If you are going to claim that you can objectively determine how "rewarding" somebody else's experience is, by all means tell us how you do it, in plain English, without all the bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-06-2014 4:33 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 12:31 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(4)
Message 81 of 86 (718542)
02-07-2014 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ringo
02-07-2014 10:50 AM


Just answer the questions: How do you measure the quality of an experience? Is climbing Mount Everest "more rewarding" than climbing Mount Whitney or Pike's Peak or the Empire State Building? If so, on what basis? Height? Slope?
To me, the only thing less rewarding than climbing a mountain, is being bored to tears listening to someone give a talk about climbing a mountain.
Now wading up a jungle stream and photographing an un-described species of dragonfly, that's a different story.
Seeing the expression of pure joy on my grandson's face when he was taking his first steps, looked like it was very rewarding to him, and he would not let anyone help him stand or walk after that.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I think I can determine how rewarding someone else's experience is, if I have had a similar experience, but that is subjective not objective.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 02-07-2014 10:50 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dronestar, posted 02-11-2014 3:45 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 82 of 86 (719124)
02-11-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2014 12:31 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I think I can determine how rewarding someone else's experience is, if I have had a similar experience,
Yep, just as I was saying all along, pretty simple and common, ain't it?
But you'd be surprise how SOME people (perhaps to the type of person who would enjoy taking a crap in his pants?) would argue that point.
Tanypteryx writes:
but that is subjective not objective.
Well, not necessarilly, . . . when it is a universally agreed upon experience it becomes objective. If the experience is non-partisan, has no dissenters, no variety of opinions, then it can be considered an objective experience:
quote:
99.99% think eating dog-crap ice cream with glass shards is a bad tasting experience. Based on life experience, one doesn't even have to actually try the experience. Since there are virtually no exceptions to rating this experience, this is a universal objective statement.
So, . . . KNOWING that eating vanilla ice-cream is a higher enjoyable experience (at least >1%) than eating dog-crap ice-cream (<.01%), we can conclude that eating vanilla ice cream is a more enjoyable experience than eating dog-crap ice-cream.
Pretty self-evident, ain't it?
So now that we KNOW some experiences CAN be objectified/rated, we can go on to use a simple diminishing scale of similar experiences that include an objective experience at one end of the scale to accurately compare similar experiences, thusly:
quote:
a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.
Pretty simple, ain't it? I didn't even need a Venn diagram to explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 12:31 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 02-12-2014 10:53 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 84 by xongsmith, posted 02-12-2014 4:58 PM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 86 (719232)
02-12-2014 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by dronestar
02-11-2014 3:45 PM


dronester writes:
necessarilly, . . . when it is a universally agreed upon experience it becomes objective.
Of course that isn't what we're talking about at all. You have not established that climbing Mount Everest is a "universally agreed upon experience".
dronester writes:
If the experience is non-partisan, has no dissenters, no variety of opinions, then it can be considered an objective experience:
There are dissenters. There is variety of experience.
You have deliberately contrived examples where there would be very little dissent and very little variety of experience - but that isn't what we're talking about. Your own claim is that "a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest...."
Using that example, explain to us how the experience can be objective. Give us the objective criteria that you used to derive that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by dronestar, posted 02-11-2014 3:45 PM dronestar has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(3)
Message 84 of 86 (719263)
02-12-2014 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by dronestar
02-11-2014 3:45 PM


Agh, drawn in....
Dronester drones on:
Well, not necessarily, . . . when it is a universally agreed upon experience it becomes objective. If the experience is non-partisan, has no dissenters, no variety of opinions, then it can be considered an objective experience
NO NO NO - I don't care how many believe YEC - it's NOT true. Objectivity is not up to a vote.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by dronestar, posted 02-11-2014 3:45 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 02-14-2014 4:25 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 85 of 86 (719515)
02-14-2014 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by xongsmith
02-12-2014 4:58 PM


Apologies to all. I seem to be typing on my keyboard with "Invisible Lock" on. Apparently this is causing participants to repeat questions I keep answering.
I am arguing about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.
It seems Tanypteryx understands, at least partly, when he wrote:
Tanypteryx writes:
it seems to me that I think I can determine how rewarding someone else's experience is . . .
xongs writes:
I don't care how many believe YEC - it's NOT true.
Sorry, the age of the earth is a historical fact, not an experience, that can be 'proven' in a multitude of different ways. It is not a "universally agreed upon EXPERIENCE" and is way off-topic to my argument.
xongs writes:
Objectivity is not up to a vote.
Sorry, not when comparing SOME experiences. The definition of objectivity is non-partisan. Thus, if an EXPERIENCE is regarded as 99.99% true or false, it can be considered an objective experience. Thus:
Because 99.99% of people agree that eating dog-crap ice cream is a LESS enjoyable experience than eating vanilla ice cream, it can be considered an objective comparison.
Because 99.99% of people agree that breathing raw sewer gas inside an animal rendering plant surrounded by a sulfer mine is NOT a more enjoyable experience than breathing in dewey fresh meadow air, it can be considered an objective comparison.
Get it? Not exactly rocket science, eh?
Simularly: Because 99.99% of people agree that crapping one's pants is NOT a more meaningful experience than summiting Everest, we can consider this an objective comparison.
So Xongsmith, in addition to Ringo, would you also like to attempt to counterpoint my argument by going on record by publicly and truthfully stating that you would find crapping your pants a more meaningful experience than summiting Everest?
While doing so may not FULLY disprove my argument, I WOULD have to concede that it WOULD degrade my argument that certain experiences are objectively more meaningful than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by xongsmith, posted 02-12-2014 4:58 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 02-15-2014 11:07 AM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 86 of 86 (719582)
02-15-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by dronestar
02-14-2014 4:25 PM


droenester writes:
The definition of objectivity is non-partisan.
Thus it needs some standard for filtering out partisanship. What is yours?
dronester writes:
So Xongsmith, in addition to Ringo, would you also like to attempt to counterpoint my argument by going on record by publicly and truthfully stating that you would find crapping your pants a more meaningful experience than summiting Everest?
Why do you continue to equivocate? YOUR OWN EXAMPLE compared climbing Mount Everest with a bus trip to the foot of Mount Everest. You need to show how THAT example can be evaluated objectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 02-14-2014 4:25 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024