tndbay

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tndbay

  • Rank
    $
  1. CRIMINAL GENES ... well, once a year, I've got a regular routine, I see the doctor for a checkup, get a flu vaccine... When I went to see the doctor I was feeling O.K. But he said "Listen to me closely, I've got something to say" "I hate to have to tell you you've got criminal genes" "Look into the microscope- I'll show you what I mean." So I looked through the lens- and you know what I saw? Forty-eight chromosomes, breaking the law! I said "That can't be right, Dr., Not so fast-" He said "I've studied genealogy and looked into your past!" "You'd better have a seat because you're in for a shock-" "You're ancestors got off the boat at Plymouth Rock!" "I can go back even further, if you so desire, To a caveman name of Uggh, who discovered fire Now he didn't need to cook, because he ate it raw- But instinctively he knew it was against the law!" "I can even go back farther, if you choose, To a single celled creature in the primeval ooze, When by random mutation, there appeared on the scene, the world's first amoeba with a criminal gene." "Now I'll have to turn you in- I've really got no choice." And then I tried to plead, in an anxious voice, I said "but you know me- I'd never hurt a soul!" He said "Maybe not now, but when that gene gets control, Your hormones will rage and your chemicals react- And you'll be driven to commit some sort of illegal act! You'll have to be locked up for the safety of us all!" And he turned his back on me and started walking down the hall... Well, I thought of me in prison and my kids and wife alone And I knew I couldn't let the doctor make it to the phone. I didn't want to kill, but there was no other way. Of course, it wasn't my fault- it was the DNA. pete
  2. argh! i fall from grace. now i probably have to wear clothes and stuff... it would seriously detract from the fun of slash and burn if i had to include a philosophical treatise in a work of comedy!! is that ok if i just footnote the work with *(see the works of Ayn Rand for the right stuff- no need to repeat her work here) ? what a trap was set and i'm caught! you know what that means? another limerick! -=atlas mugged me=- with limericks potent as these the mighty are brought to their knees since the purpose i'm after is infectious laughter i'm worse than a fatal disease. omfg, it's self deprecating too...
  3. this can only cause anxiety to very very very very poor logician! goedel, despite the perversion of his theorem, did not imply that 'you can't know anything because you can't know everything". instead, use goedel to mean that by enlarging the context you can subsume an intractable. 'everything i say is a lie' is not tractable til you enlarge the context and observe that 'this is a self contradiction. problem resolved. it was just that easy. several variations on the self contradiction exist. they are used by gurus to cripple minds. it's like a DOS on the mind (denial of services attack). i like to call these things 'spinner viruses' cuz the logical function can be reproduced with integrated circuits and what you get, when you plug an inverter's output to its input, is an oscillator that runs as fast as the gate delay will allow. when a mind is infected with one of these, its resources are consumed and the critical faculties are thereby weakened. for your protection, i include the following graphic- wrap it around a can of your favorite air freshener.
  4. the boringest thing has to be the collectivist philosophy they're so uninspired and i get real tired of them waving their we we's at me!
  5. i find no fault with your logic using your definitions. i do find a distinction between thought that can be logically validated and habit that is something any chordate is capable of learning. i talk to myself constantly. that's how i validate my reasoning. so the distinction i draw is between reasoned deliberate behaviour and other behaviour of which the performer may be unaware. this is the way i am able to make sense of the topic on which a vast library of literature has been written: the 'subconscious' this is also how i interpret the literary references which abound that call ppl 'unconscious'. see why we need precise cognitive tools (words with mutually consistent definitions)? maybe someday i write a complete dictionary...lol through verbal means i arrive at the understanding of your meaning. it would never happen if i didn't do it as that's the only means available to me. otherwise i'd be responding, 'unconsciously', at the expense of abstracting the truth of what you say. pete
  6. international terrorism? wtf? so now there will be a host of new major characters, motives and plot devices? i sure hope they don't mess it up. there's no bigger bolt to fire than atlas shrugged and they only get one shot. pete
  7. i didn't know rand was criticized for not writing comedy. but such a criticism would surely be grounds for another limerick! -=seriously funny=- a critic was once heard to mention while at a rand roasting convention "it's really fantastic being iconoclastic it certainly gets me attention!" "in fact," he continued to say "i make a fine living this way. in comes the money when i cry 'she's not funny' and i ride on her coat-tails all day! pete
  8. hi i really do get the 'sense' that resides in the statement. you should hear me go on about how it is really Natural Rejection, not natural Selection that runs evolution, or how it's the forgettery that weeds out contradictions before they get installed in long term memory. having been breast fed on objectivism, a habit of logical inference is quite second nature and i have room to be silly. there is also a context where the statement is false. that context is the realm of theoretical proofs. that makes it self contradictory and funny. according to the statement they must all be uncertain. i am absolutely certain that A=A because of the law of identity. i am absolutely certain 1+1=2, because of the number theory. according to the rule of falsification, i need only show 1 example, right? any position anybody holds that is theoretical and simultaneously presented as true must necessarily bear a disclaimer, according to the statement. this is not true. it requires a defined context, no more. so, i'm lampooning that distinction, for if the context is left to the imagination of the reader, this is what happens- somebody who sees a contradiction will experience mirth and, if left unconstrained, may produce limericks for amusement. lol- i won't excommunicate you if you don't excommunicate me! deal? if all the relevant evidence suggests that nobody laughs, i will be uncertain whether to make jokes... here...and now. pete
  9. i found it in the 'tolerance' thread- you said
  10. wow, that's some suggestion. he doesn't seem uncertain about it...lol! i, for one, am certain i spy a logical self contradiction in it... of course, there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute... and logically, therefore, there must be no such thing as logic... and that's how we prove that there's no such thing as proof! voila! limerick time! nothing can be absolute. so there's nothing that i can't refute i can leap any hurdle if i tighten my goedel and spit out the biblical fruit.
  11. i put a spoonful of coffee in the sugar bowl the other day cuz i was distracted and the habits were not properly cued. i did not consciously put the coffee in the sugar bowl. most of my driving is done without verbal validation. sometimes i have taken a wrong turn by habit. habit is a good word for these unconscious decisions, perhaps? (i guess i must be sure to specify that i use the term unconscious to mean subverbal- not sleepwalking) all our behaviours prior to acquiring language skills, then, would also qualify as unconscious in the way. any behaviour that is done without deliberation might be called subconsious, too. or unconscious. or maybe we should discriminate between unconscious and subconscious? pete
  12. what may not be clear to you, as you are embroiled in the middle of it, is starkly clear and simple to me. i have to say, also, that were i to name it here and now, i expect i'd be tarred and feathered and run out of dodge. until i've had a chance to make friends (or not) i plan to resist doing that. but to an observer from my generation and perspective- it's glaringly obvious. however, i will state unequivocally that 'objectivism is not plagued with animosity'. one must look elsewhere than a rational philosophy to find a plague. rationality is hardly at root of the squabbling. but no worries- demographics ensures that this squabbling will end, perforce, when the utility function evaporates. pete
  13. thanks. i don't think a fellow could get a better answer than what's given here!
  14. i don't equate contradiction with evil, either. inquiry is all about running headlong into them and resolving them. i think i have a satisfactory understanding of humour, and even laughter. i've met humorless people before. they were unhappy ppl. i don't recall a single instance of a happy person who was humourless. inquiring minds want to know, is all. there is an apparent contradiction here- and, as one expects, it is funny- consulting a curmudgeon on the nature of humour is a funny idea. i think humor is too self evidently an attribute of human beings to disregard or damn it. well, this has to inspire a limerick, or i can't prove anything! so here goes: -=the Humorrhoid=- this is a story in verse of a lady austere and perverse she would choke on a joke that provokes normal folk to incontinence, sometimes, or worse! depression began to consume her the doctors suspected a tumor but on x-ray was shown: a misplaced funny-bone! and from then on they called her Deep Humour! pete
  15. " Rand came up with that idea of programming her subconscious and literally tried to program normal healthy humor right out of her mind. She decided that the human capacity for humor must fit her philosophy, not her philosophy must encompass man's drive for humor as it exists." well, that's what makes a human a human, by my best definition- a creature who defines himself. i know i rehearse what i think i should get good at and extinguish habits that need it on a very regular basis. as you have pointed out (i think i got this one right) humour isn't something you force ppl to pay for- it is an element of man's nature, for sure. and rand really did do well if you are scrupulous about definitions. indeed, if all humor is mockery, then it's only one semantic conversion to make this correspond 1:1 with reality: if mockery is any time you point out a contradiction, then it looks like a good definition of humour, what she gave. for indeed, satire is a wrecking bar for demolition of false monuments and other fake erections. laughing at a kitten playing is mostly cuz it's comical to watch a little creature full of intent but short on capacity do his successive approximation- it's the failures en route that are funny, not the success. it's hilarious to watch a kitten offer to fight a big dog, for instance, when you know there's no way his intent could be fulfilled. the ambition being contradicted by the incapacity is mirth provoking. it's not the kitten, per se. perhaps a flaw enters when she characterises humor as 'essentially destructive' as if humor were not any kind of passive response but instead a tool only (but if nobody laughed would it be a funny?) i think mirth is on the level of emotions- an instantaneous response to a perceived contradiction on a subverbal level. a comedian develops a skill at eliciting this response with stories or performance. but back to topic- something screams at me it isn't right! a consciously developed habit of objective inquiry gets you atlas shrugged. a happy person laughs at things. it's not adding up yet. was she unhappy? if she was unhappy, what was the fear or guilt? (i hope the logic of that is easy!) pete