Dumb Question About Trees Falling in a Fores

Maybe this discussion point amongst dogs explains why they get so unruly in large numbers

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fuck off you retarded prick!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spastic!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosophy is for those with nothing better to do than mental masturbation. The rest of us actually get things done.

And the final word is:

The tree makes a sound wave no matter what. As the unambiguous physical definition of SOUND is the propagation of vibrations of a medium through that medium (this is physics now, for all of you philosophers out there - hang on...).

If there is no percieving agent, no sound is percieved. Now, the very phrasing of that makes it clear that sound is something seperate and distinct from the perception of sound. All of the philosophers out there will surely recognize this?

 

Philosophy(in the sense you mean) doesn't mean a thing to the application of scientific logic and interpretration of definition , something that these morons lack.

 

Yes. The ecstatic moaning of the dog whistle.

 

You missed the implication of the application of the correct epistemology to the right ontology.

 

If you define sound as the wave itself, but if you define it as the perception of the wave ?

 

Jesus christ! but the adjective 'make' puts it beyond doubt that we are talking emission not detection.


Im going to define the word philosopher how I please now, I dont agree with the dictionary definition:

Philosopher - A person with no mental capability to apply logic and context to a completely easy to comprehend sentence. A person who has had their brains so discombobulated(

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I borrowed that word from a friend) that theycan no long be trusted to be faithful to a scientific approach to the physical world.

 

Holy Crap! Why didn't I think of that!

Sam, have you been reading this thread in a parallel quantum reality, or what?

 

Well, Mr. Planck. I think we've been throughly outclassed here. If it is to be our lot to fail in the face of overwhelming stupidity, then I fear we must concede defeat...

 

To what purpose?

 

Lol!

 

No my sweet, just distinguishing between an absolute and a relative.

The presence of something is validated only by perception, isn't it?

Or have you turned religious on me?

 

Oh dear. Clearly I have phylogenic issues with my ontological epistemology. I hate it when that happens.

 

I think we have indeed hit upon a new class of stupidity Sup.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Clearly you have no notion what I am talking about.

 

Of course I do, its coloquially known as bollocks over here, but you may call it philosophy if you must.

 

Of course. I don't need your permission.

I wish you well in your endeavor to continue to believe in things with no perceptual proof of their occurrence and call it science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's hard to have a scientific discussion with someone who has no clear knowledge of the importance of epistemology and ontology.

Ontology:
http://www.formalontology.it/

In AI:
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html


Epistemology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/