Originally posted by leonheartmm
your comprehension skills are to blame again. i said i only know when it ISNT aware and it isnt aware before 2.5 months.
Which then I asked how you came to this conclusion and you danced with the lie "I said possibly" as a means to avoid backing up your nonsense.
So you know and don't know, good tactics, that.
Originally posted by BackFire
So the "he called me a poopyface first' defense.I'm back in third grade.
I'm not repremanding anyone for name calling, I just don't want you spamming our recycle bin complaining about people being mean to you when you're doing the same thing as them.
Lol. I didn't call Leonheartmm a "cretin", this is what he does, when someone shows his failed points for they are, he takes jabs and then claims others were insulting him.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
never...
That's all that needed to be said. Thank you, kind sir, for playing. *salutes*
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont. fireball and shockwave are different, but i was always referring to the shockwave and how fast it expanded, not the fireball and how fast THAT expanded. you misunderstood from the beginning.
Actually, you didn't you didn't understand before you typed that big long ignorant post. 😐
Don't try and lie now, sonny. I showed you how you were specifically wrong and THEN you tried to defend it AFTER being shown as wrong. That means I win. 😄 (that's the only thing that counts on teh internetz)
And based on what you're saying above, you still don't get it. Did you even read the links I found for you in 2 minutes?
What you said above is IRRELEVANT to what you replied to, do you know that? Go back and read that portion of my post many times over. Many many many times over until you actually understand it. Once you think it makes sense, come back here and tell me what you think it means, in your own words, and then I'll let you know if you get it yet. I am serious.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, i think i know pretty well by now what a strawman is.
That's good. No need to discuss this further, then. 😐
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i do actually. and my point about individual difference between animal programming and actions which have no survival/evolutionary significance in newborns is evidence that there IS higher brian function.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it OCCURING, or you REALISING its presence is based on intellect, however, its PRESENCE in based in our most basic feelings and exist independatly of identifying. what you are referring to is self IMAGE. im talking about the aware of one's EXISTANCE as an entity, as opposed to being a philosophical zombie.yea, ur cool too.
That's not the only example.
LOL...you mentioned P-Zombies. In this context, P-Zombies wouldn't apply as that is the paradox of recognizing true consciousness or programmed consciousness (simulating consciousness by using complex set of algorithms as opposed to true consciousness...which in and of itself could really be a complex set of programmed algorithms...ergo the paradox.) and has no place in this "debate." You're jargon dropping to lose your "debaters". It probably works on people who haven't heard of those terms before but the problem with talking to someone who actually knows what they are risks the chance that they will catch you using the jargon incorrectly...which I've done several times now.
Here's a hint: You have to read more than wikipedia. 😐 You may even have to take several college courses on logic and psychology before you know how to jargon drop properly to lose your debaters in a pontification match.
I highly recommend that you don't try the jargon dropping game with me for the sake of pontification. Keep it to things you actually know about and you'll be safe on the internet.
Edit- And just because people are hostile to you here doesn't mean that should scare you away. I really enjoy your comments in the Manga section and they are very insightful at times and you're a nice person in real life. Just learn how to debate better and take your "beatings" like a man, pick yourself back up, and go get some more.
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]That's all that needed to be said. Thank you, kind sir, for playing. *salutes*
"slaps face again". whose not reading now.......
Actually, you didn't you didn't understand before you typed that big long ignorant post. 😐Don't try and lie now, sonny. I showed you how you were specifically wrong and THEN you tried to defend it AFTER being shown as wrong. That means I win. 😄 (that's the only thing that counts on teh internetz)
And based on what you're saying above, you still don't get it. Did you even read the links I found for you in 2 minutes?
What you said above is IRRELEVANT to what you replied to, do you know that? Go back and read that portion of my post many times over. Many many many times over until you actually understand it. Once you think it makes sense, come back here and tell me what you think it means, in your own words, and then I'll let you know if you get it yet. I am serious.
your making wishful assumption which make me out to be the hurried kid who made the initial wrong assumption. i DIDNT. we were talking about the SPEED with which we see explosions expand. nothing more, nothing less. sum1 said nukes expanded slowly, i said no, because their VISIBLE shockwave expanded faster than mach one, and this is a known fact and then i gave examples of water condensation etc to support it. open your EYES, i havent been lying to you, i have no reason to, uve been indulging in wishful thinking and over confidence.
That's good. No need to discuss this further, then. 😐
That's not the only example.
LOL...you mentioned P-Zombies. In this context, P-Zombies wouldn't apply as that is the paradox of recognizing true consciousness or programmed consciousness (simulating consciousness by using complex set of algorithms as opposed to true consciousness...which in and of itself could really be a complex set of programmed algorithms...ergo the paradox.) and has no place in this "debate." You're jargon dropping to lose your "debaters". It probably works on people who haven't heard of those terms before but the problem with talking to someone who actually knows what they are risks the chance that they will catch you using the jargon incorrectly...which I've done several times now.
Here's a hint: You have to read more than wikipedia. 😐 You may even have to take several college courses on logic and psychology before you know how to jargon drop properly to lose your debaters in a pontification match.
I highly recommend that you don't try the jargon dropping game with me for the sake of pontification. Keep it to things you actually know about and you'll be safe on the internet.
Edit- And just because people are hostile to you here doesn't mean that should scare you away. I really enjoy your comments in the Manga section and they are very insightful at times and you're a nice person in real life. Just learn how to debate better and take your "beatings" like a man, pick yourself back up, and go get some more.
errr, how do you have conciosness without without self awareness or a sense of existance???????? p zombies apply PERFECTLY in this scenario since PROGRAMMING alone can not account for conciousness. you are taking the view that having an inherent set of algorythms alone is the only possible definition of a REAL conciousness, lol, ofcourse, knowing as much about cognitive science and philosophy of conciousness as you DO, you shud know that there are other alternatives and ways of defining a TRUE conciousness.
bbb-but ive been reading dennet/russel/piaget/chomsky/kant since before i started coming on kmc.........{among others, not really too prolifically recently but...} . so maybe its YOUR overconfidence and wish to push me off as sum no brain kid who is trying to drown simpler folk under a sea of difficult terms in an attempt to sound smart. guess what, im NOT, and once you realise that, youll realise that you still havent answered my QUESTIONS.
oh dont worry, im not really put down by this, specially since its nice to have others not answer your questions and revert to ad hominem attacks and fall flat on their faces in their mislead efforts. well ok, its annoying, and a waste of time, but sumtimes i just cant seem to excercise my better judgement.
Originally posted by Robtard
Lol. I didn't call Leonheartmm a "cretin", this is what he does, when someone shows his failed points for they are, he takes jabs and then claims others were insulting him.
yes, AC did, and then i called HIM a tool. so your entire claim is a BS lie. unless you and AC are the same person, i dont see the point.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
"slaps face again".
😆
Originally posted by leonheartmm
your making wishful assumption which make me out to be the hurried kid who made the initial wrong assumption. i DIDNT. we were talking about the SPEED with which we see explosions expand. nothing more, nothing less. sum1 said nukes expanded slowly, i said no, because their VISIBLE shock-wave expanded faster than mach one, and this is a known fact and then i gave examples of water condensation etc to support it. open your EYES, i havent been lying to you, i have no reason to, uve been indulging in wishful thinking and over confidence.
No. I am not over confident. How many damn times to I have to tell you that once the shock-wave exits the superheated ball of fire, it travels at mach 1. Now seriously, STFU about that. 😂 You're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. Deal with it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
errr, how do you have conciosness without without self awareness or a sense of existance???????? p zombies apply PERFECTLY in this scenario since PROGRAMMING alone can not account for conciousness. you are taking the view that having an inherent set of algorythms alone is the only possible definition of a REAL conciousness, lol, ofcourse, knowing as much about cognitive science and philosophy of conciousness as you DO, you shud know that there are other alternatives and ways of defining a TRUE conciousness.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
bbb-but ive been reading dennet/russel/piaget/chomsky/kant since before i started coming on kmc.........{among others, not really too prolifically recently but...} . so maybe its YOUR overconfidence and wish to push me off as sum no brain kid who is trying to drown simpler folk under a sea of difficult terms in an attempt to sound smart. guess what, im NOT, and once you realise that, youll realise that you still havent answered my QUESTIONS.
Why do you randomly capitalize words?
And why are you talking like your a light-side force wielding Star Wars character?
Well, from my perspective, you're using big words and jargon that you aren't doing correctly, so it appears that you are just a wikipedia reader instead of actually knowing what you're talking about.
If you are trying to study and learn, that's great. Just try to keep the things you talk about to things you know for sure. This is just advice so you can win debates.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh dont worry, im not really put down by this, specially since its nice to have others not answer your questions and revert to ad hominem attacks and fall flat on their faces in their mislead efforts. well ok, its annoying, and a waste of time, but sumtimes i just cant seem to excercise my better judgement.
I'm not sure what this is about, but if I'm assuming correctly, Robtard (and AC) seems to think the same of you.
laugh:
why you lil !!!!!{continues to strangulate dadudemon like he was bart!!!
No. I am not over confident. How many damn times to I have to tell you that once the shock-wave exits the superheated ball of fire, it travels at mach 1. Now seriously, STFU about that. 😂 You're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. Deal with it.
dadudemon, i heard you the first time and also read your links when you posted them. they are oversimplifying the phenomenon, if that was all there was to it, then explosive algebra wud be sumthing any colledge kid cud get into. it depends largely on the YIELD of the weapon, the way shockwaves form in relationship to fireball has to do with type of detonation{air burst/ground/subterranean} , the yiedl, the terrain/cloud cover etc. in smaller detonations, what you say holds true, generally, however, when your talking roughly 5 megaton or above, it definately NOT true, the time frame that the shockwave remains supersonic is MUCH larger since the time frame for the cure temperature to remain high enough for the fireball to keep expanding is much much larger. go ahead, look at any video of the tsar bomba or even the mercury test, in the former, around 6 major DISTINCT shockwaves formed and remained super sonic for a significant amount of time, until the energy density on the shocksphere decreased enough for them to turn into soundwaves. or do you honestly beleive that despite energy density being above the threshold of the wavefront to contain, that the shockwave with retain an information wavefront and travel and the resonant speed of the medium???????? i think you are very very very VERY wrong here and you just dont want to admit it. attacking me for not understanding isnt helping your argument.
Why do you randomly capitalize words?
And why are you talking like your a light-side force wielding Star Wars character?
Well, from my perspective, you're using big words and jargon that you aren't doing correctly, so it appears that you are just a wikipedia reader instead of actually knowing what you're talking about.
If you are trying to study and learn, that's great. Just try to keep the things you talk about to things you know for sure. This is just advice so you can win debates.
I'm not sure what this is about, but if I'm assuming correctly, Robtard (and AC) seems to think the same of you.
to put emphasis on them.
i dont like star wars.
but i already told you, ive been reading REAL books before wikipedia was even here. infact, poor recall at times is the only reason i use wikipedia in some instances. not only does you knocking wikipedia make no sense{since your not providing a good enough counterargument to my points, which shud be easy according to you, if im a wiki reader}, but your not making any actual counterargument.
no1 knows anything of a certainty, if you were talking about the deailed history of the american indians, i wudnt pretend to know it, among many many other things. i am talking about things that i beleive i have reasonable enough exposure to.
robtard and AC dont THINK .
Originally posted by dadudemon
so it appears that you are just a wikipedia reader instead of actually knowing what you're talking about.
Wikipedia has not been found to contain significantly more errors than other encyclopedias. While all encyclopedias are subject to error and are not considered the most academic of sources, in almost all cases, Wikipedia gives at least as much information as any standard reading material.
and just incase your still sceptical, here is some wiki to reference dadudemon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave
{read it all but specially the part near the end of detonation wave}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
again read how fast the blast winds can reach with the initial shockfront.
Originally posted by inimalist
Wikipedia has not been found to contain significantly more errors than other encyclopedias. While all encyclopedias are subject to error and are not considered the most academic of sources, in almost all cases, Wikipedia gives at least as much information as any standard reading material.
Can other encyclopedias be edited by anyone?