Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

dignan

Members
  • Posts

    1,174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dignan

  1. Damn, damn, damn. Payers out to his family. R.I.P.
  2. thank you for enlightening me to the gift of pranic nourishment
  3. and I just can't stop laughing at this last one...
  4. In the beginning of the last paragraph of that two page PDF you linked to, Bostrom writes: "If we are in a simulation, could ever know for certain? If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so." So, I understand this as the author saying we (scientists, physicists and the like) can't prove this is a simulation from our end. Without that top-down revelation, I think the most we could get is an accidently true belief...which is short of knowledge (which may also depend on if we could agree on what knowledge would entail). It's a fun thing to think about, and it makes me wish I knew more about Philosophy of Mind.
  5. This thread seems dead and I don't know if VFoR is going to update or not. That said, I think some modern day philosophers who actually espouse a libertarian free will stance are Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers University and Peter van Inwagen at Notre Dame...if anyone was interested in reading up on that view.
  6. Damn, I happened to be near and went twice to their sour week. Their opening flight on Monday was: Ballast Point, Sour Wench Cantillon, Rose De Gambrinus Drie Fonteinen, Kreik The Brewery, Wanderer Lost Abbey, Framboise De Amorosa Their closing flight on Sunday was all Berliner Weisse. I didn't keep the list, so I can't name them. I'm somewhat addicted to their Tart of Darkness, Mother Funker and also a sour from another brewery: Petrus, Aged Pale
  7. Stolen from the thread ''cherry poppin'' in metal heads..
  8. Soup-Lion, (I think we've bonded a bit now so I feel like I can say this. You've moved from Soup-Dogg to Soup-Lion). No reason to lash out at Cunt_Eastwood, he's simply referring back to your first post where you said, "from now until 2013 I plan on trying to unplug myself." Anyways, you're getting off topic. I'm still interested in seeing your claim supported by your Carr passage (post #62) in a clear way. You're not helping so I've decided to try and help you help me. In post #72 you posted a hint to your thought process. I'm going to try and put it in a clear, easy to read form and see where it actually supports your claim. In post #62 you said this.. "Claim: What I want readers to believe' Support: What I will use to support the claim Warrant: A general principle that explains why I think me evidence is accurate, and relevant to your claim." Here's your claim: Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format Your warrant: The claim is evident through scientific research Your support from post #72: "using the Net may, as Gary Small suggests, exercise the brain the way solving crossword puzzles does. But such intensive exercise, when it becomes our primary mode of thought, can impede deep learning and thinking. Try reading a book while doing a crossword puzzle; that’s the intellectual environment of the Internet" I'm going to experiment and change the order up in hopes of seeing what you see. Warrant: The claim is evident through scientific research Support #1: "using the Net may, as Gary Small suggests, exercise the brain the way solving crossword puzzles does. But such intensive exercise, when it becomes our primary mode of thought, can impede deep learning and thinking. Try reading a book while doing a crossword puzzle; that’s the intellectual environment of the Internet" Claim: Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format Putting it in this way helps me see that your claim is very different than what you said was support, and seemingly doesn't follow in any way. Carr doesn't even mention concentration, contemplation, or memorization. Another important note is Gary Smalls actual findings in the passage you privided, "...researchers found that when people search the Net they exhibit a very different pattern of brain activity than they do when they read book-like text. Book readers have a lot of activity in regions associated with language, memory, and visual processing, but they don’t display much activity in the prefrontal regions associated with decision making and problem solving. Experienced Net users, by contrast, display extensive activity across all those brain regions when they scan and search Web pages. The good news here is that Web surfing, because it engages so many brain functions, may help keep older people’s minds sharp. Searching and browsing seem to “exercise” the brain in a way similar to solving crossword puzzles, says Small." Please pay attention to the distinction Smalls makes here between searching the Net and reading book-like text, "when people search the Net they exhibit a very different pattern of brain activity than they do when they read book-like text." In your support, Carr only mentions Small's research results of when people are searching the Net. Carr does not say reading actual books is better in any way than reading book-like text. I think that is something you may be reading into the text and not getting form the text, but maybe I'm wrong. Again, that twelve paragraph passage is a critique of Net surfing and not of reading book-like text. Seems to me there are some large gaps between your support and your claim.
  9. You made the claim. You could have picked anything in the entire world to support it and you cherry picked that Carr passage for a reason. You saw something in that passage and I would like to see it too. 9th time, make your case. Or just say why you don't want to try.
  10. I don't see any reason to have to move on. I'm not asking for cliffnotes and while I may be a lazy fuck I've read that Carr passage many times now. 8th time now asking you to make your case. It's ok to make mistakes. Take a day, write it down on a piece of paper a few times and then maybe post it. It could be good.
  11. I'm just trying to stick what what you said in post #62 which was along the lines of: "Claim: Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format. Warrant: The claim is evident through scientific research Support: Not given at the time because this is the internet and I don't feel like qualifying things unless someone asks me to, but here:" Then you proceeded to post twelve paragraphs along with footnotes. All I'm asking is for you to break it down for me in numbered supports that follow to your claim. Or if you prefer you can say, after reflection, that you overstated your claim. Also, that looking back now, that you no longer can detect any cumulative support for your claim in the passage you quoted.
  12. Sixth times a charm? Anyways, let stay on one topic. And I'm sorry, when I said, "Can you please give your "evident thru scientific research support" (your words, post #62)?" I put the quotation after the word support and it should have been placed after the word research. Let me fix it for you. Can you please give your "evident thru scientific research" (your words, post #62) support? I don't want to hear someone else show the support for your claim. I want to see you show support for your claim using the passage in post #62 And it was kinda cute that on post #74 you listed footnotes as scientific support.
  13. That actually gave me a chuckle, thanks. However what I'm after is seeing how you support your claim: "Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format." Asking now a fifth time. No rush.
  14. Soup, I'm very sorry for my ignorance here. I'm sure you have a very strong case. Can you please give your "evident thru scientific research support" (your words, post #62)? Maybe it would be easier for me if you could number each "support" in order and identify for me all the relevant connecting language. Also, could you please use exact quotes, it wouldn't be much support if you had to change Carr's quote to suite your claim. I want to be able to see each step you make in order. I'm not refuting you, I'm trying to understand you. I apologize for having to ask you this four times in a row. Seriously, you can take your time, I'm not going anywhere.
×
×
  • Create New...