|
0
|
1 2009-10-22.txt:03:10:46: -!- Oranjer has joined #esoteric.
|
|
|
2 2009-10-22.txt:03:10:59: <Oranjer> hello!
|
|
|
3 2009-10-22.txt:03:11:11: <Oranjer> What is going on here?
|
|
|
4 2009-10-22.txt:03:12:14: <Oranjer> awwww _0x44!!
|
|
|
5 2009-10-22.txt:03:12:20: <Oranjer> anyone here?
|
|
|
6 2009-10-22.txt:03:12:49: <Oranjer> anyone sentient and autonomous enough to comprehend the meanings behind these words?
|
|
|
7 2009-10-22.txt:03:13:56: <Oranjer> uh
|
|
|
8 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:21: <Oranjer> fungot, what you just said does not nearly begin to prove your sentience
|
|
|
9 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:22: <fungot> Oranjer: i figure that this *is* an unstable version of chicken?
|
|
|
10 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:33: <Oranjer> ummm
|
|
|
11 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:33: <coppro> Oranjer: meet Markov
|
|
|
12 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:38: <Oranjer> hello, Markov
|
|
|
13 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:46: <Oranjer> as in, a Markov chain?
|
|
|
14 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:53: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
15 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:58: <Oranjer> is fungot a bot?
|
|
|
16 2009-10-22.txt:03:14:59: <fungot> Oranjer: it is a good way too much
|
|
|
17 2009-10-22.txt:03:15:04: <Oranjer> yeah, it is
|
|
|
18 2009-10-22.txt:03:15:57: <Oranjer> fungot doesn't seem very coherent
|
|
|
19 2009-10-22.txt:03:15:59: <fungot> Oranjer: but was walk-lisp properly tail-recursive? ( else i will tell em... :-p something...
|
|
|
20 2009-10-22.txt:03:16:23: <Oranjer> fungot, parantheses require a closing ) to be grammatically correct where I come from
|
|
|
21 2009-10-22.txt:03:16:24: <fungot> Oranjer: which is quite irrelevant if the rest are possible optimizations to be done
|
|
|
22 2009-10-22.txt:03:16:31: <Oranjer> my gods, he's right
|
|
|
23 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:11: <Oranjer> fungot, listen to me
|
|
|
24 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:12: <fungot> Oranjer: that was mean, stop doing homework problems.'
|
|
|
25 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:24: <Oranjer> dammit, fungot can also predict the future
|
|
|
26 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:25: <fungot> Oranjer: unicode defines " case folding" which is fine but how could i have to be a
|
|
|
27 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:32: <Oranjer> a what, fungot?
|
|
|
28 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:40: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
29 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:44: <Oranjer> fungot
|
|
|
30 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:51: <Oranjer> FUNGOT
|
|
|
31 2009-10-22.txt:03:18:58: <Oranjer> now I just feel ridiculous
|
|
|
32 2009-10-22.txt:03:19:03: <ehird> Oranjer: It ignores you after a time so that WE DON'T GET PEOPLE SPAMMING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BOTS!
|
|
|
33 2009-10-22.txt:03:19:15: <Oranjer> sorry, ehird
|
|
|
34 2009-10-22.txt:03:19:39: <Oranjer> I am a lonely man in a lonely world in a lonely channel in a lonely state of mind
|
|
|
35 2009-10-22.txt:03:19:43: <ehird> Oranjer: fungot is written in befunge
|
|
|
36 2009-10-22.txt:03:20:16: <Oranjer> yep? ha!
|
|
|
37 2009-10-22.txt:03:20:26: <Oranjer> what languages do you mean, though?
|
|
|
38 2009-10-22.txt:03:20:39: <Oranjer> ooh! haha
|
|
|
39 2009-10-22.txt:03:20:41: <Oranjer> nope!
|
|
|
40 2009-10-22.txt:03:21:01: <Oranjer> ummm
|
|
|
41 2009-10-22.txt:03:21:54: <ehird> Oranjer: You seem quite confused.
|
|
|
42 2009-10-22.txt:03:21:55: <Oranjer> actually, coppro recommended this channel because I wanted to talk about my attempts at creating a universal language akin to that conceptualized by Leibniz
|
|
|
43 2009-10-22.txt:03:22:23: <Oranjer> HEYlo
|
|
|
44 2009-10-22.txt:03:22:51: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
45 2009-10-22.txt:03:23:05: <Oranjer> everyone either fights it or does it
|
|
|
46 2009-10-22.txt:03:23:31: <Oranjer> how can one use oklo- as an affix?
|
|
|
47 2009-10-22.txt:03:23:46: <Oranjer> also, I have actually heard of esoteric languages before
|
|
|
48 2009-10-22.txt:03:23:51: <Oranjer> brainfuck and all that
|
|
|
49 2009-10-22.txt:03:24:16: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
50 2009-10-22.txt:03:24:30: <Oranjer> I have heard that said before, coppro
|
|
|
51 2009-10-22.txt:03:25:15: <Oranjer> is it addictive?
|
|
|
52 2009-10-22.txt:03:25:27: <Oranjer> is it mind altering?
|
|
|
53 2009-10-22.txt:03:26:01: <Oranjer> Hilbert-space? is that a meta, a mesa, an alter, or an inter space?
|
|
|
54 2009-10-22.txt:03:26:36: <Oranjer> oh, okay
|
|
|
55 2009-10-22.txt:03:26:54: <Oranjer> I just use ideosphere or memosphere or psychosphere myself
|
|
|
56 2009-10-22.txt:03:27:31: <Oranjer> yay
|
|
|
57 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:09: <Oranjer> damn self-supporting existences
|
|
|
58 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:31: <Oranjer> what's Feather?
|
|
|
59 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:36: <Oranjer> hello, Pthing
|
|
|
60 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:36: <ehird> Oranjer: NO NO NO
|
|
|
61 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:43: <Oranjer> ahhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
62 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:45: <Oranjer> sorry
|
|
|
63 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:49: <Oranjer> SHIT
|
|
|
64 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:50: <Oranjer> SHIT
|
|
|
65 2009-10-22.txt:03:28:52: <Oranjer> SHIT
|
|
|
66 2009-10-22.txt:03:29:15: <Oranjer> sanity? I know not what you speaketh ofeth
|
|
|
67 2009-10-22.txt:03:30:14: <ehird> Oranjer: To grossly misrepresent it to a degree that borders on being a lie, and insult ais523 by painting it as more simple than it is,
|
|
|
68 2009-10-22.txt:03:30:57: <Oranjer> what?
|
|
|
69 2009-10-22.txt:03:31:00: <ehird> Oranjer: It basically involves programs modifying the Feather interpreter (itself written in Feather). This interpreter is then used to retroactively run all of the program from the start, so that the change "always was", in a sense. Except it also changes the interpreter used to interpret the interpreter that interpreted the program, and so on to infinite depth.
|
|
|
70 2009-10-22.txt:03:31:21: <ehird> Oranjer: You change the interpreter, which causes an infinite chain of retroactive reinterpretations of the interpreter, and then finally of the program.
|
|
|
71 2009-10-22.txt:03:31:50: <Oranjer> but it cannot actually go through time, correct?
|
|
|
72 2009-10-22.txt:03:32:23: <ehird> Oranjer: Surprisingly no!
|
|
|
73 2009-10-22.txt:03:32:45: <Oranjer> bah, doubtful--even Hofstadter could not escape time
|
|
|
74 2009-10-22.txt:03:33:27: <Oranjer> amnesia is not time travel
|
|
|
75 2009-10-22.txt:03:33:37: <Oranjer> also, Halting Problem!
|
|
|
76 2009-10-22.txt:03:34:10: <Oranjer> haha
|
|
|
77 2009-10-22.txt:03:34:12: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
78 2009-10-22.txt:03:35:26: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
79 2009-10-22.txt:03:35:31: <Oranjer> what isn;t?
|
|
|
80 2009-10-22.txt:03:35:35: <Oranjer> *'
|
|
|
81 2009-10-22.txt:03:35:50: <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages, such as those that can solve the halting problem.
|
|
|
82 2009-10-22.txt:03:36:10: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
83 2009-10-22.txt:03:36:19: <Oranjer> I doubt their existence
|
|
|
84 2009-10-22.txt:03:36:37: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
85 2009-10-22.txt:03:36:39: <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages definitely exist.
|
|
|
86 2009-10-22.txt:03:36:57: <Oranjer> I still doubt their existence, regardless of your anecdotal support
|
|
|
87 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:07: <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
|
|
|
88 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:11: <ehird> Oranjer: They certainly exist, they're just not implementable.
|
|
|
89 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:31: <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
|
|
|
90 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:41: <coppro> Oranjer: as ehird says, almost certainly no
|
|
|
91 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:42: <ehird> Oranjer: No.
|
|
|
92 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:49: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
93 2009-10-22.txt:03:37:59: <Oranjer> ...that's what I meant, ehird...
|
|
|
94 2009-10-22.txt:03:38:13: <ehird> Oranjer: So how can you doubt their existence?
|
|
|
95 2009-10-22.txt:03:38:36: <Oranjer> I cannot, if they can be modeled, then they exist
|
|
|
96 2009-10-22.txt:03:39:28: <Oranjer> I'm a modal realist, by the way
|
|
|
97 2009-10-22.txt:03:39:38: <Oranjer> it has no bearing, just thought i should let y'all know
|
|
|
98 2009-10-22.txt:03:40:15: <Oranjer> anyways
|
|
|
99 2009-10-22.txt:03:40:21: <Oranjer> what did this all start with again?
|
|
|
100 2009-10-22.txt:03:41:19: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
101 2009-10-22.txt:03:41:40: <Oranjer> Besardles, I intend to create a functionally universal language
|
|
|
102 2009-10-22.txt:03:41:45: <Oranjer> Can y'all help?
|
|
|
103 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:03: <Oranjer> ouch
|
|
|
104 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:09: <Oranjer> that hurt's more than you think
|
|
|
105 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:14: <coppro> Oranjer: no one helps in here.
|
|
|
106 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:17: <Oranjer> :(
|
|
|
107 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:22: <ehird> Oranjer: Your abuse of the apostrophe hurts even more!
|
|
|
108 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:41: <Oranjer> that's preposterous's
|
|
|
109 2009-10-22.txt:03:42:54: <Oranjer> 'tis okay
|
|
|
110 2009-10-22.txt:03:43:19: <Oranjer> okay
|
|
|
111 2009-10-22.txt:03:43:29: <Oranjer> E-prime!
|
|
|
112 2009-10-22.txt:03:43:58: <Oranjer> no! E-Prime!
|
|
|
113 2009-10-22.txt:03:44:24: <Oranjer> haha
|
|
|
114 2009-10-22.txt:03:44:41: <Oranjer> dammit, now I have to find an Optimus quote and write it in E-Prime
|
|
|
115 2009-10-22.txt:03:45:23: <Oranjer> Synergetics, as per Buckminster Fuller?
|
|
|
116 2009-10-22.txt:03:47:14: <Oranjer> ehird? have I destroyed you?
|
|
|
117 2009-10-22.txt:03:47:44: <Oranjer> yeah
|
|
|
118 2009-10-22.txt:03:47:55: <Oranjer> I am saddened that I could never meet him or Borges
|
|
|
119 2009-10-22.txt:03:48:14: <Oranjer> how does that bot know about buckminster?
|
|
|
120 2009-10-22.txt:03:48:47: <Oranjer> I..thought...but all that jumbled nonsense after I asked "What's Feather?"
|
|
|
121 2009-10-22.txt:03:49:03: <Oranjer> yeah, but what he says is useful
|
|
|
122 2009-10-22.txt:03:49:25: <Oranjer> also, I guess you're right--the best book on Synergetics was actually a book-wide review on Fuller's book
|
|
|
123 2009-10-22.txt:03:49:44: <Oranjer> why not?
|
|
|
124 2009-10-22.txt:03:49:59: <Oranjer> 'tis my favorite quote from a movie I never saw
|
|
|
125 2009-10-22.txt:03:50:07: <Oranjer> "The Idea is valid regardless of the Origin"
|
|
|
126 2009-10-22.txt:03:50:22: <Oranjer> (I am also an Epistemological Anarchist)
|
|
|
127 2009-10-22.txt:03:50:54: <Oranjer> Synergetics
|
|
|
128 2009-10-22.txt:03:51:17: <Oranjer> building a mile-diameter floating geodesic dome by heating the inside up by one degree
|
|
|
129 2009-10-22.txt:03:52:14: <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
|
|
|
130 2009-10-22.txt:03:52:38: <Oranjer> I have some awesomes quotes from the man
|
|
|
131 2009-10-22.txt:03:53:01: <Pthing> <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
|
|
|
132 2009-10-22.txt:03:53:07: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
133 2009-10-22.txt:03:53:16: <Oranjer> ehird, no! at least back up your insults!
|
|
|
134 2009-10-22.txt:03:53:39: <Oranjer> no...?
|
|
|
135 2009-10-22.txt:03:53:52: <Oranjer> now now, ehird, that's not it at all
|
|
|
136 2009-10-22.txt:03:55:02: <Oranjer> I merely suggest that there is no concrete boundary between "science" and "pseudoscience", and that therefore a theory's "rightness" can only be determined by its validity to reality, and that that can only be determined by its usefulness
|
|
|
137 2009-10-22.txt:03:57:17: <Oranjer> now, now, Pthing, we can select at random and then textualize any fragment of any work of science, and reach the same "this guy's a kook 'cause he uses jargon I don't know"
|
|
|
138 2009-10-22.txt:03:57:48: <Oranjer> http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html
|
|
|
139 2009-10-22.txt:03:57:52: <Pthing> Oranjer, now now stop saying "now now" like a patronising faggot
|
|
|
140 2009-10-22.txt:03:57:55: <Oranjer> that's a link to that book
|
|
|
141 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:17: <Oranjer> now now, Pthing, you know namecalling is on the bottom of the disagreement hierarchy
|
|
|
142 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:18: <ehird> Unless he's actually saying that Oranjer is acting homoesxual.
|
|
|
143 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:22: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
144 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:35: <Oranjer> have you seen it?
|
|
|
145 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:38: <ehird> Oranjer: please, say that wasn't a paul graham reference
|
|
|
146 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:42: <Oranjer> uhhhh
|
|
|
147 2009-10-22.txt:03:58:47: <Oranjer> oops? is that taboo? sorry
|
|
|
148 2009-10-22.txt:03:59:14: <Oranjer> *fecespalm* just sounds awful
|
|
|
149 2009-10-22.txt:03:59:53: <Oranjer> only if you fail to provide a framework of definitions
|
|
|
150 2009-10-22.txt:04:00:13: <Oranjer> oh? you can tell the difference between the two, Pthing, without knowing what the words mean?
|
|
|
151 2009-10-22.txt:04:00:22: <Oranjer> oh, sorry, ehird
|
|
|
152 2009-10-22.txt:04:00:43: <Oranjer> oh, no, I can't Pthing, I just like to be confrontational
|
|
|
153 2009-10-22.txt:04:01:28: <ehird> Oranjer: by the way, oerjan may sue you for name infringement.
|
|
|
154 2009-10-22.txt:04:01:32: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
155 2009-10-22.txt:04:01:48: <Oranjer> I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird
|
|
|
156 2009-10-22.txt:04:02:23: <Oranjer> also, you caught me, Pthing--I do not understand anything Buckminster says--I've never read a single thing he's ever written
|
|
|
157 2009-10-22.txt:04:02:37: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
158 2009-10-22.txt:04:03:12: <Oranjer> hehehahaha
|
|
|
159 2009-10-22.txt:04:03:26: <Oranjer> I have no idea what we're doing, anyway
|
|
|
160 2009-10-22.txt:04:03:54: <Oranjer> I would ask how this all started, but I learned my lesson before
|
|
|
161 2009-10-22.txt:04:04:09: <Oranjer> oh? then I shall look at it again
|
|
|
162 2009-10-22.txt:04:04:56: <Oranjer> yeah no, I ain't getting anything outa it--I don't know what half the words mean
|
|
|
163 2009-10-22.txt:04:05:17: <Oranjer> I wonder if Buckminster built up from earlier definitions of those words?
|
|
|
164 2009-10-22.txt:04:05:33: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
165 2009-10-22.txt:04:05:56: <Oranjer> and throw in feminism, of course
|
|
|
166 2009-10-22.txt:04:06:23: <Oranjer> I mean, shrill feminism, where history is masculine and whatnot
|
|
|
167 2009-10-22.txt:04:06:49: <Oranjer> Sokal affair mk. II?
|
|
|
168 2009-10-22.txt:04:07:04: <ehird> Oranjer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
|
|
|
169 2009-10-22.txt:04:07:08: <Oranjer> ooh!
|
|
|
170 2009-10-22.txt:04:07:15: <Oranjer> I remember that without even clicking on it
|
|
|
171 2009-10-22.txt:04:07:22: <ehird> Oranjer: haha
|
|
|
172 2009-10-22.txt:04:08:17: <Oranjer> I would argue that nothing is entirely nonsense, if it has functionality
|
|
|
173 2009-10-22.txt:04:08:59: <Oranjer> haha, ehird, perhaps his consistency is beyond you?
|
|
|
174 2009-10-22.txt:04:09:20: <Oranjer> also, ehird, switching positions is a good thing, I've heard
|
|
|
175 2009-10-22.txt:04:09:48: <Oranjer> it means one is more focused with reaching the truth, as opposed to merely wanting to convince others of your own rightness
|
|
|
176 2009-10-22.txt:04:10:00: <Oranjer> monkeys n' typewriters, eh?
|
|
|
177 2009-10-22.txt:04:10:41: <Oranjer> ah, ehird, but all things exist as examples to learn from--even bullshit
|
|
|
178 2009-10-22.txt:04:10:55: <Oranjer> hehe
|
|
|
179 2009-10-22.txt:04:11:00: <Oranjer> 'pataphysics!!!
|
|
|
180 2009-10-22.txt:04:11:40: <Oranjer> hehe
|
|
|
181 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:20: <Oranjer> hey, peoples, let the other person talk! oy vey!
|
|
|
182 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:26: <Oranjer> y'all are talking over each other
|
|
|
183 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:35: <Oranjer> that's hardly good debate from
|
|
|
184 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:47: <ehird> Oranjer: with IRC, you can't make someone else's message unreadable; isn't it great
|
|
|
185 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:55: <Oranjer> ummm
|
|
|
186 2009-10-22.txt:04:12:58: <Oranjer> okay, ehird?
|
|
|
187 2009-10-22.txt:04:13:14: <Oranjer> quite simply
|
|
|
188 2009-10-22.txt:04:13:23: <Oranjer> out of context is not in the meaning
|
|
|
189 2009-10-22.txt:04:14:20: <Oranjer> as in, to avoid language games and talk past each other as much as possible, we should let the other person complete their thought
|
|
|
190 2009-10-22.txt:04:14:22: <Oranjer> (just a thought)
|
|
|
191 2009-10-22.txt:04:14:30: <Oranjer> I know how to!
|
|
|
192 2009-10-22.txt:04:14:34: <Oranjer> bisociation, bitches!
|
|
|
193 2009-10-22.txt:04:14:37: <Oranjer> (awwwwwww)
|
|
|
194 2009-10-22.txt:04:16:13: <Oranjer> and of science in general, I would argue
|
|
|
195 2009-10-22.txt:04:16:59: <Oranjer> but where would the functionality in subscribing "roundness" to both squares and circles?
|
|
|
196 2009-10-22.txt:04:17:26: <Oranjer> also, the Euclidian approach favors circles to squares? I have seen no such thing--citations, please?
|
|
|
197 2009-10-22.txt:04:17:39: <Oranjer> its use! can I use this?
|
|
|
198 2009-10-22.txt:04:18:02: <ehird> Oranjer: Clearly, uniformness is desirable: there is no discrimination between the different parts of a shape.
|
|
|
199 2009-10-22.txt:04:18:19: <Oranjer> for whatever the Observer wishes to use it for, Pthing
|
|
|
200 2009-10-22.txt:04:18:40: <Oranjer> meh
|
|
|
201 2009-10-22.txt:04:18:53: <Oranjer> very, well, Pthing, I shall think about this
|
|
|
202 2009-10-22.txt:04:19:24: <Oranjer> as I have actually gone for some time assuming the definition of "functionality" as something hardly worth referring to
|
|
|
203 2009-10-22.txt:04:19:47: <Oranjer> also, "It won't lead anywhere" is hardly evidence supporting its own claim
|
|
|
204 2009-10-22.txt:04:20:08: <Oranjer> and yes, Pthing, it's not worth talking about because it has no use
|
|
|
205 2009-10-22.txt:04:21:08: <Oranjer> Basically, I would argue that the only way to "prove" communication is if a goal is accomplished whose accomplishment's chances of occurring would have been greatly increased if the second party understood the communication
|
|
|
206 2009-10-22.txt:04:21:48: <Oranjer> and therefore, I would say a theory has functionality if the Observer can use it to accomplish a goal
|
|
|
207 2009-10-22.txt:04:22:30: <Oranjer> haha, what?
|
|
|
208 2009-10-22.txt:04:22:32: <Oranjer> http://nobodyscores.loosenutstudio.com/index.php?id=534
|
|
|
209 2009-10-22.txt:04:22:35: <Oranjer> this reminds me of that
|
|
|
210 2009-10-22.txt:04:23:08: <Oranjer> I thought you said "Chastity is no way of life! God can't spell!"
|
|
|
211 2009-10-22.txt:04:23:54: <Oranjer> bah, I long ago learned to avoid any assumption of knowing an "absolute truth"
|
|
|
212 2009-10-22.txt:04:24:10: <Oranjer> I instead use "valid according to what I have observed of this universe"
|
|
|
213 2009-10-22.txt:04:24:35: <Oranjer> yes, I do turn all so-called objectivist, absolute statements into subjective relativism
|
|
|
214 2009-10-22.txt:04:24:36: <Oranjer> yay!
|
|
|
215 2009-10-22.txt:04:24:51: <Oranjer> HAHA
|
|
|
216 2009-10-22.txt:04:24:56: <Oranjer> THE FUTURE IS AWESOME
|
|
|
217 2009-10-22.txt:04:26:20: <Oranjer> WHO AUTHORIZED THAT CHANGE
|
|
|
218 2009-10-22.txt:04:26:49: <Oranjer> also, Jesus Fuckin' Houdini did this get outa hand
|
|
|
219 2009-10-22.txt:04:27:37: <Oranjer> I just want to create a functionally universal language that explicitly refers to its own abstraction and that which it does not cover!
|
|
|
220 2009-10-22.txt:04:28:11: <Oranjer> sorry
|
|
|
221 2009-10-22.txt:04:28:40: <Oranjer> also, I have determined that all such "mental" planes only exist in the meta-, and as such cannot carry on into this space
|
|
|
222 2009-10-22.txt:04:29:14: <Oranjer> :O
|
|
|
223 2009-10-22.txt:04:29:15: <Oranjer> hardly
|
|
|
224 2009-10-22.txt:04:29:48: <Oranjer> do you mean semantically empty because you do not know what I mean by the words I say, or because you know for a fact that what I say has no meaning?
|
|
|
225 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:08: <Oranjer> there exists a distinct difference between the two
|
|
|
226 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:09: <Oranjer> awwww
|
|
|
227 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:13: <Oranjer> sorry, Pthing
|
|
|
228 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:17: <Oranjer> :(
|
|
|
229 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:22: <Oranjer> :((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
|
|
|
230 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:31: <ehird> Oranjer: because I'm fairly sure any digression into what meaning you consider it to have will involve the words "subjectivity", "reality" and "epistemology"
|
|
|
231 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:46: <Oranjer> I will try to avoid those words
|
|
|
232 2009-10-22.txt:04:30:52: <Oranjer> haha
|
|
|
233 2009-10-22.txt:04:31:08: <Oranjer> I love it when a movie ends in an existential crisis
|
|
|
234 2009-10-22.txt:04:31:49: <Oranjer> I have yet to see a single one that does, I am afraid
|
|
|
235 2009-10-22.txt:04:32:38: <Oranjer> very well, I shall amend my original statement as per your observation
|
|
|
236 2009-10-22.txt:04:33:20: <Oranjer> /I feel like I would enjoy/ a movie that ends in an existential crisis, if indeed such a movie exists
|
|
|
237 2009-10-22.txt:04:34:11: <Oranjer> you see, ehird? From what I have seen, E-prime makes explicit those things that normally divide most sides of a disagreement
|
|
|
238 2009-10-22.txt:04:34:51: <Oranjer> yes, it is largely dealing with semantics
|
|
|
239 2009-10-22.txt:04:34:53: <Oranjer> BUT
|
|
|
240 2009-10-22.txt:04:34:59: <Oranjer> yes, madbrain
|
|
|
241 2009-10-22.txt:04:35:02: <Oranjer> BUT
|
|
|
242 2009-10-22.txt:04:35:10: <Oranjer> I have used it for years in all my official documents
|
|
|
243 2009-10-22.txt:04:35:24: <Oranjer> and I gotta tell ya, it makes you seem hell of smarter
|
|
|
244 2009-10-22.txt:04:35:50: <Oranjer> also, it has helped me cut through the curvy-turvies of most modern ethical dilemmas
|
|
|
245 2009-10-22.txt:04:36:04: <Oranjer> I know!
|
|
|
246 2009-10-22.txt:04:36:12: <Oranjer> I try to go beyond just removing "to be"
|
|
|
247 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:03: <Oranjer> I also: try to avoid negations, try to avoid stative verbs, try to date and place my sentences, and try to make explicit the source(s) of the evidence my claims
|
|
|
248 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:20: <Oranjer> oh, bloody hell
|
|
|
249 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:27: <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
|
|
|
250 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:31: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
251 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:47: <Oranjer> You disagree with sounding rehearsed why...?
|
|
|
252 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:48: <ehird> Oranjer: remember? all truths are valid independently of their reasoning method
|
|
|
253 2009-10-22.txt:04:37:57: <Oranjer> yes, quite
|
|
|
254 2009-10-22.txt:04:38:02: <Oranjer> haha
|
|
|
255 2009-10-22.txt:04:38:51: <Oranjer> hardly, ehird--I say an idea's validity is independent of its source
|
|
|
256 2009-10-22.txt:04:38:54: <Oranjer> haha
|
|
|
257 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:06: <Oranjer> *sigh*
|
|
|
258 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:31: <Pthing> <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
|
|
|
259 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:45: <Oranjer> WHAT
|
|
|
260 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:47: <Oranjer> JESUS FUCK
|
|
|
261 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:54: <Oranjer> I have no "catchphrase"
|
|
|
262 2009-10-22.txt:04:39:57: <Oranjer> yes, ehird
|
|
|
263 2009-10-22.txt:04:40:23: <Oranjer> I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity
|
|
|
264 2009-10-22.txt:04:40:31: <Oranjer> I agree, ehird
|
|
|
265 2009-10-22.txt:04:40:46: <Oranjer> I merely stated an opinion of my own
|
|
|
266 2009-10-22.txt:04:40:57: <Oranjer> you see, Pthing, that was hardly a catchphrase
|
|
|
267 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:04: <Oranjer> I can
|
|
|
268 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:13: <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
|
|
|
269 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:38: <Pthing> <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
|
|
|
270 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:42: <Oranjer> oh
|
|
|
271 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:43: <Oranjer> huh
|
|
|
272 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:49: <Oranjer> well, it was hardly intentional
|
|
|
273 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:57: <Oranjer> yes, madBRAIN
|
|
|
274 2009-10-22.txt:04:41:59: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
275 2009-10-22.txt:04:42:04: <ehird> madbrain: no, Oranjer is making bullshit and we're anti-bullshitting it :P
|
|
|
276 2009-10-22.txt:04:42:26: <Oranjer> aye, ehird
|
|
|
277 2009-10-22.txt:04:42:49: <Oranjer> okay, Pthing, could you repeat what you said I should say in fewer words?
|
|
|
278 2009-10-22.txt:04:43:20: <Oranjer> dammit
|
|
|
279 2009-10-22.txt:04:43:23: <Oranjer> I forgot it
|
|
|
280 2009-10-22.txt:04:43:48: <Oranjer> dammit
|
|
|
281 2009-10-22.txt:04:44:13: <ehird> is it just me, or are we totally deconstructing Oranjer's reality piece by piece
|
|
|
282 2009-10-22.txt:04:44:15: <Oranjer> Pthing, now you're just arguing semantics, and that's a dick move, and I fear it is made outa spite
|
|
|
283 2009-10-22.txt:04:44:33: <Oranjer> actually, I suspected as muc, ehird
|
|
|
284 2009-10-22.txt:04:45:02: <Oranjer> *sigh* Pthing, I believe you're operating under the misconception that I am using e-prime, now, in irc chat
|
|
|
285 2009-10-22.txt:04:45:05: <Oranjer> but I am not
|
|
|
286 2009-10-22.txt:04:45:41: <ehird> Oranjer: maybe instead of using e-prime you should disambiguate things like "you're arguing semantics"
|
|
|
287 2009-10-22.txt:04:45:42: <Oranjer> a simple style choice, madbrain
|
|
|
288 2009-10-22.txt:04:45:58: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
|
|
|
289 2009-10-22.txt:04:46:36: <Oranjer> I have forgotten what statement of mine you referenced when you suggested that I rephrase said statement using fewer words
|
|
|
290 2009-10-22.txt:04:46:44: <ehird> damn Oranjer
|
|
|
291 2009-10-22.txt:04:46:50: <Oranjer> sorry?
|
|
|
292 2009-10-22.txt:04:46:58: <Oranjer> sure, ehird, why the fuck not
|
|
|
293 2009-10-22.txt:04:47:14: <Oranjer> ooh, okay
|
|
|
294 2009-10-22.txt:04:47:20: <Oranjer> yes, ehird, I prefer your version
|
|
|
295 2009-10-22.txt:04:48:00: <Oranjer> yes, madbrain, it mainly uses it as a copula
|
|
|
296 2009-10-22.txt:04:48:08: <Oranjer> *oy vey*
|
|
|
297 2009-10-22.txt:04:49:14: <Oranjer> holy shit, ehird, I just reread the sentence you're criticizing, and it really is pretty bad
|
|
|
298 2009-10-22.txt:04:49:26: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
|
|
|
299 2009-10-22.txt:04:49:34: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
|
|
|
300 2009-10-22.txt:04:50:01: <Oranjer> heh
|
|
|
301 [too many lines; stopping]
|
