Curt Doolittle seems to want a public debate, so I’ve offered the challenge.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Like
Like
Love
Haha
Wow
Sad
Angry
CommentShare
25Megan Cyloneight and 24 others
Comments
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I didn’t realize responding to lame criticism was an invitation to a debate. But if slicing and dicing a pseudo-intellectual is necessary to silence idiocy then i’m your huckleberry.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Yawn. Hot air as usual – you know I don’t lose debates, right? When can you come on skype and mop the floor with me?
Like · Reply · 2 · 59 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer I see a lot of recess level cut downs, but not much meat. I love baiting these kind of guys.
Like · Reply · 1 · 57 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Yeah. like your video today? lol
Here we go chipmunk. Pick a topic. I have time late this week and late next week.
Like · Reply · 56 mins
Kyle Griffin
Kyle Griffin ‘you know I dont lose debates right?’ that my friend. is exactly why you lose every debate.
Like · Reply · 54 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Haha. Seriously dude? You bet my video from today. As in how you didn’t respond to any of the actual arguments in the talk (let me guess – ‘there weren’t none!”).
Like · Reply · 54 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Kyle – Yawn Irvin suffered this same fate. I don’t lose debates.
Like · Reply · 1 · 53 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle you didnt make an argument you made straw men.
Like · Reply · 53 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle well I kind of doubt you’re smart enough to know you you lose all of them…. if today’s video was any example.
Like · Reply · 1 · 53 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer I critiqued scientism through a transcendental argument, which you obviously don’t understand. I made probably 20 arguments, obviously.
Like · Reply · 2 · 53 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Typical materialist retardo hot air – never ending championing of their own intellect.
Like · Reply · 2 · 52 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I know a lie when I see it. I’m going to show the audience your a charlatan. and it’s going to be easy.
Like · Reply · 52 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Please pop your collar up when you do!
Like · Reply · 2 · 51 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I’m not championing my intellect I’m pointing out your lack of one. wink emoticon
Like · Reply · 51 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle muchkin
Like · Reply · 51 mins
Calvin Long
Calvin Long Room. Get one. wink emoticon
Like · Reply · 1 · 51 mins
Kyle Griffin
Kyle Griffin being clever is not about raving about how clever you are jay its about logic and rational critical thinking. more than anything its about being humble enough to know when you dont know what you’re talking about. its not about the ego, which is something you seem to suffer from.
spewing out accusations like ‘hot air” and the like that have no bearing other than to make you feel like you’re on the high horse.
Like · Reply · 51 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Hmm, I’m 6 3 and fit. Your short, chunky and pop your collar lol who is the munchkin here?
Like · Reply · 1 · 50 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I am pretty sure I’ve killed more men than you have.
Like · Reply · 49 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Kyle – Curt wanted a debate by calling me out. I don’t shy away from debates and Yawn Irvin learned that the hard way.
Like · Reply · 49 mins
Kyle Griffin
Kyle Griffin curt said nothing about a debate you just decided that he must have challenged you to a duel by hurting your pride
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 49 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Is that supposed to be some advantage for debate?
Like · Reply · 49 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I called you a bullshitter. a laughable pseudointellectual. a schizotypal personality.
Like · Reply · 48 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Curt – are you familiar with transcendental arguments?
Like · Reply · 48 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I am familiar with pseudoscience, yes.
Like · Reply · 48 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Is Kurt Godel pseudoscience?
Like · Reply · 47 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle kurt godel was a human being.
Like · Reply · 47 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer A funny man! Are mathematical objects social constructs?
Like · Reply · 46 mins
Calvin Long replied · 1 Reply
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle define mathematical object.
Like · Reply · 46 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer A number.
Like · Reply · 45 mins
Hide 116 Replies
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle a number is a positional name for a sequence of actions of pairing off.
Like · Reply · 44 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer So they are merely token symbols?
Like · Reply · 43 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I gave the operational definition, and its informationally complete enough to withstand further inquiry. You are attempting a to construct a falsehod by suggesting a substitute that is not equally informationally complete. ie:youre trying to lie.
Like · Reply · 41 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer You’re interjecting verbiage to confuse a clear matter – I stand with Roger Penrose and use his argument. It’s a well-known platonic argument by mathematicians. No lies involved.
Like · Reply · 40 mins · Edited
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So you are going to appeal to authority now. you can’t sustain the argument you began?
Like · Reply · 1 · 39 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle you use a very childish technique of appeals to all sorts of analogy rather than necessity. it’s called seeking confirmation bias. or, intellectual excuse making.
Like · Reply · 38 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle a number is a positional name for a sequence of actions of pairing off
Like · Reply · 38 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer I just said it wasn’t a proof of the argument, just showing you its an old argument.
Like · Reply · 36 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle you cannot prove an argument, you can only show it is internally consistent. an argument survives criticism or it does not. proof does’t determine truth but possibility.
Like · Reply · 35 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer What is childish is constant name calling. It’s a simple argument mathematicians have used for a long time. So, your verbiage is just a rehash of nominalism. It’s a “positional name,” ergo it’s a token symbol for some set. Hence Godel and Penrose’s arguments hold.
Like · Reply · 1 · 35 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle astrologers have used arguments for a long time. that has no bearing on a statement’s truth or falsehood.
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer I agree about internal consistency. I accept the coherency theory of truth. As for “proof,” that depends on what criteria one has, which would require omniscience.
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer A transcendental argument is nothing like astrology, it’s a reductio argument.
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle (you must understand you are far, far, far, out of your depth in discussing any philosophical topic with me. I am one of the best people working today. that is not a statement of my excellence but one of the decline in philosophy under postmodernism.)
Like · Reply · 1 · 35 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle a reductio argument is one in which the example is tautological and therefore inapplicable. ie: false.
Like · Reply · 33 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Dude, I’m citing arguments from known and respected philosophers dealing with mathematics and you’re telling me how great you are, seemingly unaware of them . lol
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle An argument survives criticism or it does not.
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle In other words oyu are appealing to authority without showing causal relations.
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Correct. lol so you know what a reducito it. lol
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle in other words you’re lying
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle so far you have not made an argument. yuo have evaded them with a series of excuses.
Like · Reply · 31 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Curt – a transcendental argument is a reduction argument that shows the impossibility of some position being coherent.
Like · Reply · 31 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle make an argument becuase you have not yet made one.
Like · Reply · 31 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Mathematical objects cannot be token symbols or merely human social constructs and therefore rank materialism is false and contradictory.
Like · Reply · 30 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer A transcendental argument.
Like · Reply · 30 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle logical consistency is predicated on the assumption of non-contradiction. Making a loose analogy does not an argument free of contradiction and external correspondence make.
Like · Reply · 29 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Scientism is self refuting insofar as it presupposes all truths are empirical, when that foundational maxim itself is not empirically known.
Like · Reply · 1 · 29 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Scientism is self refuting insofar as it presupposes all truths are empirical, when that foundational maxim itself is not empirically known.
Like · Reply · 29 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer It’s not a loose analogy, you appeal to objects or concepts which cannot be material, in order to defend materialism. Hence you contradict at a fundamental level.
Like · Reply · 1 · 28 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle science does no such thing becuse science does not make the rationalist fallacy of proof. Instead, science says only that if we eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, and deceit in each possible dimension that we may possess a truth candidate.
Like · Reply · 1 · 28 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Nominalism, which is what you affirm, is the lie here.
Like · Reply · 28 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Are you aware that scientific method and process operates on logic? A la Husserl’s Logical Investigations?
Like · Reply · 27 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I never, ever, ever appeal to other than existential entities which is why I never fall into the rationalist fallacies (which any reasonable grad student would criticize you for)
Like · Reply · 1 · 27 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Except that you do – that is my point.
Like · Reply · 26 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Numbers, the laws of logic, are existential entities that are not material in nature.
Like · Reply · 26 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle This is incorrect. the scientific method is explained by philosophers, but scientists ignore philosophy and practice their craft.
Like · Reply · 26 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer I did grad work in this bruheim.
Like · Reply · 26 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Yes, they do, inconsistently and incoherently.
Like · Reply · 25 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle a number is a name. your name is jay. names exist.
Like · Reply · 25 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle tehy exist when we act.
Like · Reply · 25 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Exactly – that is called nominalism, Mr. Philosopher King.
Like · Reply · 2 · 25 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer And that is the only existence they have, correct?
Like · Reply · 1 · 24 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Did you really think you could just rehash nominalism from 600 years ago and no one has responded to, or dealt with this issue? There are a long, long list of capable mathematicians who have refuted this retardation, most notably Husserl in the Logical Investigations.
https://jaysanalysis.com/…/husserls-rejection-of…/
Husserl’s Rejection of Nominalistic Skepticism and Affirmation of Universals
JAYSANALYSIS.COM
Like · Reply · 22 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Numbers are universals. Invariant, immaterial and not bound by time. Oops!
Like · Reply · 22 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Existence of a number requires a mind to host it, and sense experience to bring it into existence as experience.
The fact that many of us use the same number system means that we can make use of these names just as we make use of all other names.
There is no more mystery or magic to numbers than there is to your name OTHER than that it is possible to sympathetically test your possibilities, and the consequence s of your actions but it is not possible for mortal man to envision the consequences of axiomatic expressions without a great deal of effort using symbols and operations as temporary stores of state.
Like · Reply · 1 · 18 mins · Edited
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle verbalisms. Numbers are positional names. pairing off can be done with any set of names. Early number sets used many names. the fact that pairing off a sequence of any marker (stone) or positional reference is identical every time is obvious. No magic needed.
Like · Reply · 19 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Why was Husserl (as a good german) trying to create mysticism where none exists?
Like · Reply · 18 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer And you ridiculously believe that minds are merely matter, so the question of number “in a mind” is made all the more nonsensical in materialism.
Like · Reply · 18 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer What you call mysticism is number theory, which is obviously not material in nature.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Mandelbrot sets show they are not merely names.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I gave you number theory in two statements. that’s all there is. nothing more. The basis of mathematics is exactly as I said. period.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer This is Kurt Gödel’s argument.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Ad hoc dogmatism. All hail Curt’s divine decision that numbers are merely names, despite Mandelbrot sets. You realize the human mind cannot conceive of that set, right? that is the point. Thus they are not material.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle mandelbrot sets show that when calculations can be performed beyond the rate at which humans can process those operations (in his own words)
If you understood Godel’s arguments you could repeat them and show the relation to the conversation. The fact that I am making operational arguments are you are using appeals to authority and analogy without demonstrating causal relations is because you do not understand those relations. that is all. nothing more is going on here.
You are not capable of understanding so you are relying upon verbal mysticism.
Like · Reply · 15 mins · Edited
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer You are making Bertrand Russel’s arguments about sets. I am making Godels. You lose that argument, just like Rusell.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle you haven’t made an argument you are just throwing names around. any first year philosophy stuident will understand what you are doing.
Like · Reply · 14 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer ‘mandelbrot sets show that when calculations can be performed beyond the “
Good argument Curt. Is this an argument? I understand the argument well, as well as Hofstadter’s books on it. I don’t think you do because you just title mysticism what YOU don’t understand.
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I am making no one’s argument. I am stating facts. Numbers consist of positional names for pairing off. Pairing off is the simplest operation possible. Pairing off is scale independent. Scale independnece must be provided by context (called ‘axiom of choice’ in mathematics).
Godel like Cantor used the pairing off method in order to retreat to the foundations of mathematics and circumvent some of the dogma of the intervening ages.
Like · Reply · 12 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle You have made no argument.
I use operational definitions in all my work.
This all but guarantees I must understand the existential necessiteis that bring any object I refer to into existence.
Like · Reply · 11 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Anyone with any education will readily be able to see by now that you’re just an excuse maker. Are you sure you really want to continue all your bloviating?
Like · Reply · 1 · 17 mins · Edited
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle CAUSAL RELATIONS
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle OPERATIONS ARE CAUSAL.
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle OPERATIONS EXIST.
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I’m calling you out as a bullshitter. A pseudo-intellectual. A pretender. Not a philosopher, but a charlatan.
Like · Reply · 9 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Make an argument that shows causal relations, by NECESSITY.
Like · Reply · 9 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle ooops. nope? sadly it was obvious from the start.
Like · Reply · 9 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Your definition of number presupposes the very thing in question – I am asking what number IS, and you reply it is merely a name for pairing. That is the point – it cannot merely be a name for an operation. I am asking about the truth or conceptual reality behind that. Now, you will deny that – and that is what I am challenging. When you discuss number with another person, what is the content that is shared in that conversation that is in another person’s head? When you say “7” and I think “7” – that shows the number in question cannot merely be an action of pairing.
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer The cells in one person’s head are not the same as another person’s cells. How is the same conceptual content and meaning shared?
Like · Reply · 7 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer In materialism?
Like · Reply · 7 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer No one is buying your ad hominems and bullshit bragging dude.
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle the word “is” means ‘exists as’.
What you are talking about is the free associations that develop in the mind when habituating the use of numbers, formulae. This are free associations. Some of these free associations consist of useful patterns. Some oft hem consist of nonsense. some of falsehoods. Like all free associations they must survive criticism in order for ust to testify that they are truth candidates.
Like · Reply · 1 · 14 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Haha so they are social constructs?
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle A social construct in the current vernacular means that they are created by preference not by necessity.
Numbers are exactly what I said they are.
That people dream about these things is a property of man, not of positional naming.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Actually, everyone is buying it. That is, unless your followers are succeptible to nonsense. And I’m sure there is a market for nonsense. That’s why we have different markets for every ten points of IQ : limits.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So the error you just made was an attempt to conflate the properties of a thing with the imaginary properties of a thing that are produced by free association.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer haha yeah dude. only a phony troll brags about killing people on facebook. youre the fraud.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer waste of time. Go pop your collar.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle ah. So we know I won. Right?
Like · Reply · 1 · 10 mins
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle everyone else does.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer dream on dude. you think winning is just rehashing your materialism and nominalism. lol
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 min
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So here is your (Jay’s) recipe for philosophical snake oil:
1) use a lot of analogies and non-operational language
2) use conflation by avoiding operational language
3) use critique (criticizing the opposition without providing an opposing theory)
4) using name calling “materialism nominalism” and such without demonstrating the dependence upon such arguments.
5) Building straw men.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Curt – you realize that in your worldview you return to a meaningless universe at death, right? So that means life is meaningless, ultimately. And that means meaning is fleeting and also passes away, out of existence when humans aren’t creating them. That means all your arguments are temporal, nominal meaningless phantasms. Oops!
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I mean, you’re like a full course in rehtorical fallacy
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Like how you interjected about 80 ad hominems and rehashed your position? Fallacies like that?
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Dude. If you feel the desperate need for mysticism I understand. But I deal in INTERPERSONAL not PERSONAL philosophy. I deal with truth not desire. With necessity not preference.
I don’t care what you do with your nonsense, but don’t bring up my name again unless oyu want me to keep dragging you through the mud so that eveyronen sees your an empty hat.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Name calling? Those are the fucking philosophical terms for the position, which you ought to know, Philosopher King.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Personal philosophy may be necessary in order to tolerate existence – especially when reality would force you to confront your failure and inadequacy.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle But some of us deal with science.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Curt – I don’t believe it is “mysticism.”
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle And science is necessary not because of preference but becuase in matters of difference of opinion conflicts must be decidable.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Your conception of “science” is scientism.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Well you do rely on mysticism
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer You realize computer science uses these abstract maths I’m talking about, right?
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle You are repeatedly referring to the source of information that is not causal.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Yes, God is the Mind which houses these multitude relations.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle computer science is based upon the foundations of binary mathemtatics: an infinte truth table consisting of pairing off.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Here’s a good book on it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-God…/dp/0671797182
The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
AMAZON.COM
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So again. I have no problem with snake oil salesmen, I have no problem with mystics. The common people need their crutches.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle But some of us must rule.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle And truth is the only possible means of rule.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle God and physical law and natural law are synonyms for me, sorry. I need no other crutch.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Your crutch is scientism.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So please be a good little boy and play in your sandbox with your pretend toys while a few of us adults try to solve the problem of the social sciences sot hat we can eliminate the need for discretion in political orders and thereby eliminate the opportunity for corruption.
That is after all, the purpose of the libertarian intellectual program: rule of law. Because the only rule free of discretion is that which consists of laws – natural laws.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 mins
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Infinities, by the way, are not observable in the natural world. oops!
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle No infinity an be brought into existence. None can exist. Infinities like limites are a device we use for managing scale independence when constructing general rules.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Haha You are the most arrogant ass Ive ever met in my life, and Ive met many.
So they aren’t real, but they also are used in computer science….hmmm.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer You’re a complete psycho nutball – the perfect embodiment of the libertardian ethos.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle I am, however arrogant I may or may not be, one of the best living philosophers, and I have just spent a small amount of my relatively precious time defending my reputation from a charlatan.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer LOL
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle So you mean you are admitting defeat by retraeating fully in to (a) mysticism and (b) name calling, right?
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer HAIL!
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle Everyone else knows you have been defeated.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle But the schizotypal personality cannot tolerate reality.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Oh man, this is rich. I’m laughing because it’s hard to tell if you are real.
Like · Reply · Just now
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle My diagnosis was correct. You are schizotypal.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-11 16:07:00 UTC
Leave a Reply