Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

Maybe you could lead the way by apologising to me?

Reminder: you told me to go to school, told me that any scientist would agree with you, and told me again to go to school to learn about diamond deposit formation. Having been shown that these various comments were all way off base, where is your apology?

For that matter, forget apologies - just drop this ridiculous argument by attrition, already.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

I will apologise for being rude. No matter how wrongheaded I consider your tactics, and I consider them very wrongheaded, that does not excuse my rudeness.

I will not apologise for being wrong, however, for the simple reason that I do not consider myself to be wrong. There is to my mind a significant difference between the General and the Specific (and likewise between a Concept of an object and an Object), and that difference remains no matter how many times you attempt to equate an object with knowledge about the object and how many times you equate the current nonexistence of something that once existed with the nonexistence of something that never has existed.

From you, NTJedi I would like an apology for insulting the intelligence of all the readers by using arguments such as "all scientists agree..." when they manifestly do not (as several of the people who oppose you here qualify as scientists). I do not ask you to apologise for being wrong, though I consider you to be so, merely for insulting our intelligence.

[ March 21, 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

[jaif]

"So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random."

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

Let's put this another way: I know about centaurs. There are no real centaurs: they don't exist, it's just an idea in my head (and in many peoples).

As for basing knowledge on experience, of course that's generally the root. However, the human mind is able to combine ideas and make obscure connections to come up with "new" ideas. I put new in quotes because there's a huge philosphy debate on what's really "new", and I shudder to go down that road because it's really boring.

All that said, I agree entirely with this '..."known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up.' I was playing a game of semantics, but it boils down to what he says here; you can believe whatever you want.

Finally, NTJedi, as an outside observer I do have to say that I agree with the others that your argument style is rather insulting. Just look up the meanings of the words involved in a dictionary, and then take an english course where past tense, present tense, etc are explained. Spending pages debating common english words and using slippery sematical differences is just a baby game.

"God is love."
"Love is blind."
"Ray Charles is blind"
"Ray Charles is God"

See? Playing with words just leads to nonsense (though fun nonsense, in this case).

-Jeff

[Zapmeister]

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

I heartily disagree. Knowledge is the awareness of a set of facts. Facts are premises which are correct (otherwise they're fallacies).

If you "believe an idea in your head" it's a belief if there's some empirical reason to hold it, or a faith otherwise. Not knowledge.

Regarding the original topic, I think the most salient point was made by whoever pointed out that Akashic Record will not detect the sites prior to the event, proving their non-existence, and it's meaningless to speak of knowledge of non-existent entities.

[jaif]

I beg to differ - I *know* many fallacies. Knowledge is the sum of a person's experiences, intuitions, and deductions. Facts are things which are 'true'; they're the 'ideal' while knowledge is how close we get to the ideal (or not).

-Jeff

[Zapmeister]

Hmm. I would say that you know *of* many fallacies. The *facts* that constitute your claim to knowledge in this matter are that the statement (of the fallacy) has been made, it makes sense and that it is false.

[SelfishGene]

Wow. ... ^^

I think however i understand whats in his mind. This might be seen as a bad thing .

Think of the differences between a random 'seed' variable being created *at the start* of a Dom2 game which creates a mine that is later triggered, and rolling to place a mine in a province at the moment of creation.

The former is his "nonexistent and unknown", or at least it could be from the way i gathered he was attempting to define non-existence. A sort of 'predestination' since the mine 'seed' had already been generated.

And hopefully he could see the difference as well...

[ March 25, 2004, 08:06: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]