IM Logs with westcalxvandy on 2009-04-05

eytang8@yahoo.com ay yo su

eytang8@yahoo.com sup

westcalxvandy hello

eytang8@yahoo.com I am feeling ambivalent about life

eytang8@yahoo.com it's relaxing

westcalxvandy euro hw.

eytang8@yahoo.com ewww

westcalxvandy I'm feeling ambivalent about life

westcalxvandy and it's driving me nuts

eytang8@yahoo.com wa

eytang8@yahoo.com aw

westcalxvandy is Mitchell complaining about my "dumb"ness?

westcalxvandy or has he been within the last 15 minutes?

eytang8@yahoo.com he mentioned it in passing

eytang8@yahoo.com Well, you aren't being very logical in this argument, anywas

westcalxvandy I asked for his definition of reason

westcalxvandy He supplied one; by that definition computers can not reason.

eytang8@yahoo.com WELL I DEFINE REASONING AS A CAR

westcalxvandy He gave me a different definition, and by that definition computers could reason.

eytang8@yahoo.com YOU CAN'T REASON EITHER

eytang8@yahoo.com So?

westcalxvandy Then he said I was being anal about my definitions.

eytang8@yahoo.com Consistency != accuracy

westcalxvandy But it matters; if you use a different definition, it changes the outcome.

eytang8@yahoo.com So?

westcalxvandy That's an if-by-whiskey relativist fallacy.

westcalxvandy So I'm not being anal, I'm being precise.

eytang8@yahoo.com Still, that's not the point of the argument to define reasoning

eytang8@yahoo.com Although it's probably important

westcalxvandy There's not an argument to define reasoning. I wanted a definition to go on.

westcalxvandy And two different definitions made two different conclusions.

westcalxvandy Mitchell calls me dumb for my desire for clarification... then I predicted he was going to do what he always does.

eytang8@yahoo.com And what is that?

westcalxvandy Go to a different friend and complain about something that upset him.

westcalxvandy Insult that person, generally calling them "dumb" or "retarded" or using the specific reference, like "Carter is being anal..."

eytang8@yahoo.com He did say you were easy to troll

westcalxvandy to troll?

eytang8@yahoo.com yes, to troll

westcalxvandy He started the argument.

eytang8@yahoo.com Presumably to troll you

westcalxvandy I rebutted.

westcalxvandy I don't feel any different. I'm unamused by Mitchell's attempt to troll me

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

eytang8@yahoo.com good

westcalxvandy bleh

westcalxvandy what makes me unhappy is that he thinks he's right

eytang8@yahoo.com He is, though

westcalxvandy about?

eytang8@yahoo.com People being less logical than computers

westcalxvandy I never said they weren't

westcalxvandy This argument

westcalxvandy here

westcalxvandy within the last 30 minutes

eytang8@yahoo.com About you being anal?

westcalxvandy was about computers being able to reason

eytang8@yahoo.com They are able to reason

eytang8@yahoo.com aren't they?

westcalxvandy It depends on the definition of reason though.

eytang8@yahoo.com I dunno

westcalxvandy the definition he gave me was "mentally analyze"

eytang8@yahoo.com It also depends on the definition of computer

eytang8@yahoo.com The point is the analysis, not the mind

westcalxvandy Okay... computers can analyze.

westcalxvandy Mentally analyze?

eytang8@yahoo.com "Mentally" is a bad adjective for it

westcalxvandy But, in that definition, is what reasoning is.

westcalxvandy By that definition, computers can not reason.

eytang8@yahoo.com Yes, but wouldn't you understand the intention behind it?

westcalxvandy No...

westcalxvandy he gave me that definition

eytang8@yahoo.com But the point is not to prove that computers have minds

westcalxvandy You're right.

westcalxvandy It's to prove that they can reason. Reason means to mentally analyze in that case. Computers can not mentally analyze. Therefore, computers can not reason, in this case.

eytang8@yahoo.com But you jumped on his wording

eytang8@yahoo.com His words instead of his meaning

westcalxvandy I didn't jump; that is what was asserted and that was what was drawn from a conclusion.

westcalxvandy He supplied a new definition

westcalxvandy [14:28] Mitchell: to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

westcalxvandy By that definition, computers can reason.

eytang8@yahoo.com That was what he intended to say

westcalxvandy And that is exactly what I said to him

eytang8@yahoo.com with the first one

eytang8@yahoo.com so to him it probably felt like you're arguing technicalities

westcalxvandy But there's a major difference there. The definition mattered in that case, irrespective of what he meant, that is what the definition meant.

westcalxvandy And when he gave me a new definition, I told him by that definition computers could reason.

westcalxvandy And then he called me anal.

eytang8@yahoo.com It is correct

eytang8@yahoo.com but it's still kinda not the point

westcalxvandy What's correct? and what is the point?

eytang8@yahoo.com The point of his definition was obviously the analysis part

eytang8@yahoo.com and it's correct for you to mention the mind

eytang8@yahoo.com but that wasn't the point that he was trying to argue

westcalxvandy So? he used a poor definition to prove his point. He used a better one and his point succeeded. It matters what the definition.

westcalxvandy And for that, I'm being "anal" and "close minded"

eytang8@yahoo.com I already told you why it seems that way

westcalxvandy But it is not as it seems.

eytang8@yahoo.com Again, you understood his meaning, but attacked the definition just because of his wording

westcalxvandy Ugh...

westcalxvandy You see it as he does as well.

eytang8@yahoo.com You wanted to know why, and I'm telling you.

eytang8@yahoo.com Your point is legitimate, but unrelated

eytang8@yahoo.com to what he actually meant

westcalxvandy But it's important.

eytang8@yahoo.com Again, the fact that yiou understood what he actually meant and CHOSE TO IGNORE IT in favor of attacking the way he worded it is kinda an annoyance

westcalxvandy I did not choose to ignore it!

eytang8@yahoo.com What he actually intended to say

eytang8@yahoo.com yes you did

westcalxvandy I asked what the x was in the equation, he gave me a number that led me to an answer he didn't want

eytang8@yahoo.com It was obvious he didn't mean the mind part

westcalxvandy Wouldn't be obvious to a computer.

eytang8@yahoo.com Again, not the point

westcalxvandy You say don't blame a computer for the faulty information given to it, Mitchell gave me faulty information and I reasoned a conclusion that was wrong.

westcalxvandy A computer wouldn't know what he meant either.

eytang8@yahoo.com You had the information about what he meant

eytang8@yahoo.com based on his past statements

eytang8@yahoo.com and what other people say

eytang8@yahoo.com and your copious knowledge of metaphors and similes and stuff

eytang8@yahoo.com You understand how people think

eytang8@yahoo.com based on your experiences with them

westcalxvandy I knew what the answer was 4 in the equation 1+ x = 4. He gave me x=2. I knew he wanted four, does that mean I should change x to 3 because he didn't communicate well?

eytang8@yahoo.com If I accidentally say "great" instead of "eight" you can tell the difference, can't you?

eytang8@yahoo.com You'd know what I intended to say

eytang8@yahoo.com based on the circumstances and past experiences

westcalxvandy It doesn't matter his intention. He was trying to prove something- if he hadn't supplied a second definition he wouldn't have been able to prove his point. If I just assumed what he meant by that definition even with knowledge of the alternative definition, I would have accepted something on faulty logic.

eytang8@yahoo.com Okayy

eytang8@yahoo.com But can you see why he feels that way?

westcalxvandy He's being over emotional about my desire for clarification. He's acting like a child and you're wiping his tears yelling at the older brother to apologize.

eytang8@yahoo.com Calling me names will achieve nothing

westcalxvandy Funny I told Mitchell that too. Notice I didn't call you anything.

eytang8@yahoo.com Again, you're missing the point, aren't you?

westcalxvandy You're right. Insulting you will achieve nothing.

eytang8@yahoo.com I can, in fact, see that you value rigor and it's a completely legitimate thing to do

westcalxvandy But it appears you ignore that fact in favor of the easier course. It's like I just disprove God to you but you still go to church every Sunday because your parents will get angry if you don't.

eytang8@yahoo.com There are a lot of things I have to bend over and take because my father is an unreasonable bastard, yes

westcalxvandy Didn't know Mitchell was your dad...

eytang8@yahoo.com But can't you understand Mitchell's viewpoint at all?

westcalxvandy I understand it's frustrating to know you communicated poorly and now must pay the price of slightly altering your argument. No reason to throw a tantrum so he can get a lollipop and continue going on thinking he's right.

westcalxvandy But I doubt you said anything in response to Mitchell's accusation of my "anal"ness or my "closed minded"ness even though you understand the legitimacy of my argument.

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

eytang8@yahoo.com continue

westcalxvandy You'd spend hours on end explaining to the atheist that it's that boy's religious beliefs to think there is a God and that you need to see it from their view that it'd be really, really hard to accept there being no divine creator now that they ate Bible Bunches for cereal every day for the last 15 years, but you wouldn't go back to the religious child and explain to them the logic or rational behind the atheists argument. You let the religious child go on think he's right.

eytang8@yahoo.com Straw man

westcalxvandy You're afraid of the consequences of it.

eytang8@yahoo.com It's more like he means to say that he doesn't go to church and his statement is misconstrued

eytang8@yahoo.com to mean something entirely different

westcalxvandy ...translate the previous statement from metaphor to English.

eytang8@yahoo.com .Okay

eytang8@yahoo.com Mitchell's statement was not wrong

eytang8@yahoo.com the way he worded it was wrong

eytang8@yahoo.com You say that wording something wrong means somehow that you let someone believe something that's wrong

eytang8@yahoo.com As if to imply that Mitchell's actual argument was wrong

eytang8@yahoo.com and that I'm trying to defend him because it's possible to see why he means what he says

eytang8@yahoo.com Whereas with your metaphor, the boy believes something that is logically improbable

eytang8@yahoo.com and says things exactly as he means them

eytang8@yahoo.com As well as that, "anal" is a relative opinion

westcalxvandy But without clarification, his argument was wrong, irrespective of what he meant. In all debates, precision in your statements is beyond important, or else it can lead to incorrect assumptions and conclusions. I'm not saying Mitchell was wrong in concluding computers could reason. They way he tried to convince me of that, by supplying an incorrect definition to the point he was trying to prove, did not convince me that computers could reason. From before he actual conclusion, I believed it depended on your definition of reason. When he supplied me with a definition that proved computers could reason, my mindset was changed. In that, it was really important that he said exactly what he meant, or I would not have changed opinions, and in his eyes, remain "closed minded." (Although truly, it does not matter what I say, Mitchell has become closed minded himself in that no matter that he changed my own opinion he's still going to see me as "closed minded." Also if I did relate my changed mind, it would only further his gargantuan ego and forever close his mind to the opinion that I am always wrong. Mitchell is so hypocritical it's exhausting; like dealing with several babies with diarrhea and none of them will believe stool is coming from their rears).

eytang8@yahoo.com (irrelevant observation: This is not a formal debate)

eytang8@yahoo.com Your statements about Mitchell's mentality seem fine

eytang8@yahoo.com are fine

westcalxvandy (When you are arguing over the reality of something, you should always treat it as a formal debate)

eytang8@yahoo.com 'kay

westcalxvandy What do you mean about his mentality?

eytang8@yahoo.com Once he decides something about you, he sticks with that conception

westcalxvandy That's it?

westcalxvandy That's all you think I'm right about? My observation of his own closed mindedness but not the legitimacy of my argument on saying exactly what you mean?

eytang8@yahoo.com The argument on saying what you mean is also legitimate

westcalxvandy And you said he was annoyed by the fact that he meant what he said but didn't say what he meant?

eytang8@yahoo.com THat's what my understanding of it was

westcalxvandy So then by all of this, Mitchell is angry over something that is his own fault?

eytang8@yahoo.com Over your reaction to it

westcalxvandy To what?

westcalxvandy What was my reaction?

eytang8@yahoo.com to cut him down over it

eytang8@yahoo.com I doubt we're achieving anything through this discussion, BTW

westcalxvandy But you agreed on the importance of saying what you mean! In no way did I "cut him down" over it, I didn't start yelling at him over his definition.

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

westcalxvandy Pointing out a flaw in an argument is not "cutting him down" over it. The clarification was important, as you agreed, so my desire for clarification was more than justified.

eytang8@yahoo.com Point taken

westcalxvandy But still you side with him as if I reacted wrongly here. I reacted correctly if you truly agree to the important of saying what you mean.

eytang8@yahoo.com point taken

westcalxvandy So by this, Mitchell is over reacting to something that is his own fault.

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

westcalxvandy Did you tell him that?

eytang8@yahoo.com Nope

eytang8@yahoo.com now I did

westcalxvandy What did you say when he proclaimed of my "anal"ness or "closed minded"ness?

eytang8@yahoo.com

Mitchell
2:40 PM
[14:37] Carter: I'm not being anal. I'm making sure we're clear on the definition.
[14:37] Carter: Preferring clarification ≠ being anal
[14:37] Mitchell: except you're not preferring clarification
[14:38] Mitchell: you're being close minded
[14:38] Carter: How am I being closed minded?
[14:38] Mitchell: 14:25] Carter: depends on the definition of reason
[14:38] Mitchell: you know what reason is
[14:39] Mitchell: reason and it's several definitions
[14:39] Mitchell: that don't differ much in meaning
2:41 PM
[14:39] Carter: But it changes the outcome of whether or not computers can reason or not
[14:39] Carter: so they differ enough for it to matter.
2:42 PM
trollolololololol
2:45 PM
say something!
2:48 PM
or are you engaged in an argument with carter?

eytang8@yahoo.com
2:50 PM
I'm not
2:50 PM
I just ate a hotdog

westcalxvandy That's all you said?

westcalxvandy (And you do realize Mitchell cuts arguments so they favor toward his side, and the fact that he stated that I knew what the definition of reason was, does not mean I knew what the definition of reason was. Your whole premise on me knowing what he meant was based on something Mitchell declared to be true).

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

eytang8@yahoo.com Mitchell
2:51 PM
lol

eytang8@yahoo.com
3:58 PM
You're over reacting to something that's your own fault

westcalxvandy The point of this was not to pull your teeth until you told him his annoyance was poorly channeled...

westcalxvandy But whatever... this whole debate to prove a point feels empty now that I had to beat you until you believed me and Mitchell can't hear me up on his pedestal of pride and arrogance...

westcalxvandy Wanna be proven to that Mitchell has a superiority complex?

eytang8@yahoo.com I already believe it to some degree

westcalxvandy time to believe more.

westcalxvandy "Behaviors related to this mechanism [a superiority complex] may include an exaggeratedly positive opinion of one’s worth and abilities, unrealistically high expectations in goals and achievements for oneself and others, persistent attempts to correct others (regardless of whether or not they are actually correct), vanity, extravagant dressing (intent on drawing attention), excessive need for competition, pride, over-sentimentality and affected exaltation, snobbishness, a tendency to discredit others' opinions and over-forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered as weaker or less important."

eytang8@yahoo.com Ooh, that sounds like me

westcalxvandy -Wikipedia, citing this from Alfred Adler's book "Social Interest: Adler's Key to the Meaning of Life" which is the origin of the superiority complex

westcalxvandy "exaggerated positive opinion of one's worth and abilities,... persistent attempts to correct others,... excessive need for competition, pride,... snobbishness, a tendency to discredit others' opinions and over-forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered as weaker or less important"

westcalxvandy Any of those you argue Mitchell doesn't fit?

eytang8@yahoo.com Attempt to dominate, perhaps? But even that seems to be there

westcalxvandy "facebook arguing"?

westcalxvandy "You're retarded" "Soooo dumb" "Trollololololol"

westcalxvandy Remember his remark at the back chemistry table?

eytang8@yahoo.com which one?

westcalxvandy "I'm the one who's going to be most successful in life, at this table."

eytang8@yahoo.com I didn't think he really believed it

eytang8@yahoo.com but I guess I should reconsider that

westcalxvandy I was about to say...

westcalxvandy even without that one.

westcalxvandy Rene and Mitchell mocking me for saying he has a superiority complex was invalid.

westcalxvandy I actually lose self-confidence around them they're so degrading of my intelligence... I should look these things up more often if I don't want to commit suicide.

eytang8@yahoo.com Please don't

westcalxvandy Are you afraid of Mitchell?

eytang8@yahoo.com nope

eytang8@yahoo.com Not to my knowledge

westcalxvandy I think you're subconsciously afraid of him.

eytang8@yahoo.com why?

westcalxvandy You never argue with him. You never assert your own against him.

eytang8@yahoo.com What would I argue?

eytang8@yahoo.com I never seem to need to

westcalxvandy Don't act like he's never exploited any mistake you've ever made.

eytang8@yahoo.com probably

westcalxvandy Or some flaw he'll bother.

eytang8@yahoo.com Yeah, that

westcalxvandy Make sure you're accepted as subjugated...

eytang8@yahoo.com But it's never something I can argue

westcalxvandy Never can?

westcalxvandy You've instantly accepted him as right.

eytang8@yahoo.com He says something

eytang8@yahoo.com and it's not

eytang8@yahoo.com bleh

westcalxvandy not what?

eytang8@yahoo.com It's always something that is just dumb to argue

eytang8@yahoo.com or something I don't take seriously

westcalxvandy Were you ever talkative?

eytang8@yahoo.com Not really

eytang8@yahoo.com Even less so than now

westcalxvandy In elementary school you were just as quiet as you are now?

eytang8@yahoo.com Pretty much

westcalxvandy Kindergarten?

eytang8@yahoo.com I don't even remember most of Kindergarten

westcalxvandy I mean seriously... can you ever remember a time where you were even more energetic than now?

eytang8@yahoo.com More energy, not much talking

eytang8@yahoo.com I think my dad got to me before anyone else

westcalxvandy Got you?

westcalxvandy **to you?

westcalxvandy But your brother and sister

westcalxvandy they're normal hyperactive children...

eytang8@yahoo.com Um, okay

westcalxvandy I mean how were you gotten to but they weren't?

eytang8@yahoo.com Okay, now you're convinced of it

eytang8@yahoo.com Good job

westcalxvandy Convince of what?

eytang8@yahoo.com That I'm defective or something

westcalxvandy You're not defective.

westcalxvandy You're quiet.

eytang8@yahoo.com Obviously you don't know what you're saying

westcalxvandy then help me understand.

westcalxvandy What am I saying incorrectly?

eytang8@yahoo.com Nothing I say will affect you

eytang8@yahoo.com there's no point in trying

westcalxvandy I'm open minded, despite what Mitchell says.

eytang8@yahoo.com You're open enough to decide

eytang8@yahoo.com and then stick to it

westcalxvandy I won't stick to anything if there's any reason not to.

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

eytang8@yahoo.com wonderful

eytang8@yahoo.com You believe I'mi manipulated and controlled

westcalxvandy From what I've observed, it seems that you get subjugated by Mitchell's dominance. By the wording of the last statement that's a common misconception and now you're going to prove to me exactly what I'm wrong.

eytang8@yahoo.com okay

eytang8@yahoo.com Doesn't change the fact that you won't accept anything I say

westcalxvandy Try me.

eytang8@yahoo.com Well, what are you looking for?

westcalxvandy An answer.

eytang8@yahoo.com to what?

westcalxvandy To what you really mean.

eytang8@yahoo.com specifics, please

westcalxvandy You say that I won't accept anything you say in converse to the idea that you're subjected to Mitchell. What won't I accept?

eytang8@yahoo.com bleh

westcalxvandy What have you got to lose?

eytang8@yahoo.com nothing

westcalxvandy So this is the part where you explain it all.

eytang8@yahoo.com nope

westcalxvandy and the reason why is?

eytang8@yahoo.com I don't want to

westcalxvandy the reason for that is?

eytang8@yahoo.com No idea why

westcalxvandy I would certainly like to hear.

eytang8@yahoo.com Well, what do you want to hear?

westcalxvandy You say that I won't accept anything you say in converse to the idea that you're subjected to Mitchell. What won't I accept?

eytang8@yahoo.com I dunno

eytang8@yahoo.com What would I provide as proof?

westcalxvandy Obviously you had something in mind.

eytang8@yahoo.com nope

westcalxvandy So then I'm going to continue having the slight belief that you remain quiet because you were forced quiet by people like Mitchell.

eytang8@yahoo.com Clearly

westcalxvandy And you're not going to try and prove otherwise?

eytang8@yahoo.com obviously not

westcalxvandy Okay.

eytang8@yahoo.com hell, maybe I am

westcalxvandy By everything you've said, I don't actually think you were forced quiet.

westcalxvandy I'm going to remain ambivalent until further notice.

eytang8@yahoo.com by which you mean a secret certainty

westcalxvandy Actually I mean a secret belief that you just choose to be quiet.

eytang8@yahoo.com obviously not

westcalxvandy No such thing as ambivalence: You believe one way or the other. Or you haven't heard of it yet.

westcalxvandy Wait what do you mean obviously not?

eytang8@yahoo.com you'll always believe whatever you will

westcalxvandy And I believe you're just quiet-natured, now.

westcalxvandy When evidence to say otherwise comes up, I will revise my belief.

eytang8@yahoo.com does it make a difference if I'm bleeding right now?

westcalxvandy I would tell you to go fix it in whatever way you can.

westcalxvandy Do you ever think up music videos when listening to a song?

eytang8@yahoo.com sometimes

westcalxvandy I do that to Octopus's Garden every time I hear it..

westcalxvandy Somewhere in it Spongebob always gets shot.

eytang8@yahoo.com lol

westcalxvandy We've been debating for the last 2 hours or so

westcalxvandy and for once it wasn't about religion

eytang8@yahoo.com But it was equally pointless

westcalxvandy Not true.

westcalxvandy I proved something.

eytang8@yahoo.com Oh yeah, that

westcalxvandy For once in my life I proved a valid point.

westcalxvandy Reading Socrates does wonders for your logic.

westcalxvandy ...lol wow I suck

westcalxvandy "reading Socrates"... the world's biggest oxymoron helps my logic

eytang8@yahoo.com If it works...

westcalxvandy Socrates didn't write >_>

eytang8@yahoo.com so?

westcalxvandy reading... nvm

eytang8@yahoo.com Yes.

westcalxvandy I'm tired of staring at a computer screen.

eytang8@yahoo.com Go do something

westcalxvandy I'm gonna go rot my brain with a television screen now.

eytang8@yahoo.com 'kay

westcalxvandy Then regenerate the rot with a good book.

westcalxvandy Then back here.

eytang8@yahoo.com coo'

westcalxvandy be back later