Current Events > I will rank CE men intelligence, with a series of questions.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Summary- These questions will be done in series, with answers being tallied as a point for or against being smart. Questions will test knowledge and understanding of concepts, theories and idea brought forward. Remember, do not make assumptions that are not covered by the context of the question. Are you a ingenuious CE Man? Play today!
Note: After a certain number of replies, I will provide the next question.

Question 1: Can Emotions ever be considered a rational justification for certain actions?

what are your qualifications for ranking intelligence
---

SSJCAT posted...

what are your qualifications for ranking intelligence

The reasoning used and quality of the responses. Fallacious reasoning will be considered unintelligent, as well as about round about answering that never actually answers the question.

Teddytalks posted...

SSJCAT posted...

what are your qualifications for ranking intelligence

The reasoning used and quality of the responses. Fallacious reasoning will be considered unintelligent, as well as about round about answering that never actually answers the question.

You didn't answer his question at all :V
---

Teddytalks posted...

Question 1: Can Emotions ever be considered a rational justification for certain actions?

In the fight-or-flight response context, sure.

My answer to question 1 is "yes, only if.."

-Some actions don't need to much reasoning to justify them and a few pictures can portray a good enough message.
-There are very few absolutes in the universe or the metaphysical. There are surely some instances and some times where it's perfectly viable.

If the question were about it being the most efficient or clear way of communicating the justification? It's almost certainly a "no, except..." because, once again, nothing is absolute.
---

Kineth posted...

There are very few absolutes in the universe or the metaphysical.

The way the question is worded depends on an absolute.
It's really a bad question. The correct answer is obviously "yes" objectively, but it just doesn't seem right.

Wow it's like an internet IQ test that talks back to you.
---

It can be a way to explain them but not necessarily justify them. Grieving people might drink too much, for example, and its understandable.

Justifying someone losing their mind and committing murder is harder to do, but there is also mental illness to consider which is just as real as a physical ailment.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

There are very few absolutes in the universe or the metaphysical.

The way the question is worded depends on an absolute.
It's really a bad question. The correct answer is obviously "yes" objectively, but it just doesn't seem right.

I was beginning to wonder if the question was malformed when I saw you guys responses, as you are correct, the context of the question depends on an absolute. Emotions, by their function, are not dependent on logic or reason, but on subjective feelings towards something. By it's very composition, they cannot be rational, and thus due to the Context of the question, there is only right answer.

The trick to my question is answering within the framework I provide, and understanding interrelations between the concept introduce, to arrive to the logical conclusion. Some other answers can be correct, but only in a different context. If we didn't speak in absolutes, then 1+1 can be three, with reproduction being cited as the basis for this reasoning.

Context matters

+1 to Question marktius
+1 to kineth.

Edit: Smart boys for understanding flaw with question I made, but let speak in context for now on plz.

Edit2: Nonfree points. Only to the smarty pants.
Question 2: Can a positive claim be proven if the claim is dependent on proving something doesn't exist?

Teddytalks posted...

I was beginning to wonder if the question was malformed when I saw you guys responses, as you are correct, the context of the question depends on an absolute. Emotions, by their function, are not dependent on logic or reason, but on subjective feelings towards something. By it's very composition, they cannot be rational, and thus due to the Context of the question, there is only right answer.

The absolute-dependency applies to "ever". If there's any possible case where the question is true, then every other case doesn't matter.

Teddytalks posted...

Question 2: Can a positive claim be proven if the claim is dependent on proving something doesn't exist?

This one's a little difficult.

I think this mostly hinges on you saying 'proven'. I think in the context you're suggesting, the hypothesis can be supported, but it can't necessarily be proven. The claim would have to be saying that something happens because something doesn't exist. The thing is that if thing 2 doesn't exist, then thing 1 was never happening because of the nonexistence of the thing 2 since thing 2 never existed in the first place.

I feel like this is the wrong answer though.

And don't give those other people points. Me and QMark earned our points!
---

Teddytalks posted...

Question 2: Can a positive claim be proven if the claim is dependent on proving something doesn't exist?

It can be proven that something does not exist right now. That's as far as it goes.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Teddytalks posted...

I was beginning to wonder if the question was malformed when I saw you guys responses, as you are correct, the context of the question depends on an absolute. Emotions, by their function, are not dependent on logic or reason, but on subjective feelings towards something. By it's very composition, they cannot be rational, and thus due to the Context of the question, there is only right answer.

The absolute-dependency applies to "ever".

I would argue no because logic and reason can be used to assess certain information that can validate a certain emotional response, but the inverse is poor as emotional can be used for the potential justification for anything. I don't believe emotion can ever produce rationality. At best it can be supported by it.

Teddytalks posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Teddytalks posted...

I was beginning to wonder if the question was malformed when I saw you guys responses, as you are correct, the context of the question depends on an absolute. Emotions, by their function, are not dependent on logic or reason, but on subjective feelings towards something. By it's very composition, they cannot be rational, and thus due to the Context of the question, there is only right answer.

The absolute-dependency applies to "ever".

I would argue no because logic and reason can be used to assess certain information that can validate a certain emotional response, but the inverse is poor as emotional can be used for the potential justification for anything. I don't believe emotion can ever produce rationality. At best it can be supported by it.

It's certainly possible to have rational emotions or emotional rationality. They're 2 sides of the same coin, not polar opposites.
---

Teddytalks posted...

I don't believe emotion can ever produce rationality. At best it can be supported by it.

"I don't like strawberries" may be subjective, but the objective fact that particular subjective opinion exists is a rational enough reason to avoid strawberries.

Question 2 points

+2 for Kineth and question markitus.

Correct answer in that a positive claim of something non-existence cannot be proven, and correcting my mal-formed question.

Status:Possibly smarter than me. Big brains.
Kineth
Question Markitus.

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?
Question 3:

Teddytalks posted...

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?

Unknown, because it can't really be proven whether or not free will is actually deterministic.

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?

Absolutely not. In fact, it validates it. We have the choice of making our actions and the fallout out that comes from them as causality just goes to show that our free will has an effect. It's impossible to disprove free will on the basis that things just happen.

I suppose that didn't properly answer the question. Point is that people don't have do anything. When we choose to do something, that's not out of some cosmic direction other than "maybe you should do the right thing."

Nihilism doesn't end with nihilism, it's just the point where you start accepting your stake in the universe and the world.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Teddytalks posted...

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?

Unknown, because it can't really be proven whether or not free will is actually deterministic.

I don't necessarily think it being deterministic matters in this question. It could be for a couple of seconds or a lifetime in regards to this question.
---

Kineth posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Teddytalks posted...

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?

Unknown, because it can't really be proven whether or not free will is actually deterministic.

I don't necessarily think it being deterministic matters in this question. It could be for a couple of seconds or a lifetime in regards to this question.

Some of the goofier stuff in quantum physics strongly suggests that free will probably isn't deterministic anyway, but it's enough of an unknown to make the question resolve to also unknown.

The safe answer is "no" then, because it's completely unknown whether or not free will is causal, therefore causality doesn't necessarily have to validate free will.

@Darkman124
@COVxy
@lderivedx
@Balrog0
---

Kineth posted...

Question 3: Does the law of causality necessarily invalidate the concept of freewill?

Absolutely not. In fact, it validates it. We have the choice of making our actions and the fallout out that comes from them as causality just goes to show that our free will has an effect. It's impossible to disprove free will on the basis that things just happen.

I suppose that didn't properly answer the question. Point is that people don't have do anything. When we choose to do something, that's not out of some cosmic direction other than "maybe you should do the right thing."

Nihilism doesn't end with nihilism, it's just the point where you start accepting your stake in the universe and the world.

Choice necessarily implies we have the freewill to influence the environment around us, which runs counter to the formation of humans, which dictate a certain manner of behaviors, belief foundations, and even physical features be determined by genetic or environmental factors. When the entirety of an individual is pre-chosen, and even any alterations to the individuals destiny is done by the framework provided, the argument for free will will be hard-pressed to be made.

However you are correct, that the law of casuality does not necessarily invalidate free will. My line of thinking was that, even though the law of casuality can explain all supposed free will actions, its explanation alone is not a invalidation of freewill. Question Markitarus questioning free will as a deterministic concept answers the question to, and even to a greater extent then I could.

Question 3 points:

Question Markitus 1
Kineth: 1

Total point count- 3 Kineth
3 Question Markitus.

Any hangups, please explain. If desired, I can make the questions on contemporary examples, instead of abstractions. Probably start by default around question 7.

Question 4: Are there certain axioms that must be accepted to maintain coherency?

My answer to question 4 is... big floppy donkey dick.
---

Give me some time guys, got personal matters to attend to.

Teddytalks posted...

Question 4: Are there certain axioms that must be accepted to maintain coherency?

Not really, no, but a few of them are very useful along the way. Axioms by nature are just condensed statements of theory, and are subject to the same scientific process which may or may not lead to eventual disproval.

These questions assume knowledge. Knowledge isn't necassarily a prerequisite for intelligence.

You can be uneducation, and not know the definition for causality, but still be of high intelligence.

Yes: education, knowledge and intelligence can most assuredly bolster one another, but they are not synonymous.

Intelligence is a difficult aspect to measure.
---

The ability to solve a problem is a measure of intelligence. I suppose you could say that these questions are testing a person's wisdom, rather than their intelligence, but I think that's a needless nuance.

As for question 4, that one is peculiarly phrased. To maintain coherency? The only axiom I could think of that would matter is one that suggests that you should be willing to acknowledge your own faults and/or be willing to further explain yourself. If you're coming across as incoherent to someone else and your goal is to maintain coherency, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if they're having trouble understanding you and on the other end, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if you're the one that is actually being incoherent.

I suppose this could be summarized in that you should be willing to listen, in order to gauge the problem within the context, if you're looking to solve it.
---

Kineth posted...

To maintain coherency?

1 + 1 = 2 is about the only example I could think of, but then sometimes 1 + 1 = 10.

Kineth posted...

As for question 4, that one is peculiarly phrased. To maintain coherency? The only axiom I could think of that would matter is one that suggests that you should be willing to acknowledge your own faults and/or be willing to further explain yourself. If you're coming across as incoherent to someone else and your goal is to maintain coherency, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if they're having trouble understanding you and on the other end, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if you're the one that is actually being incoherent.

I actually attempt to do that, if I feel that I'm being misunderstood. I also try to go as far as to tell the person that I am attempting to reword my thoughts in a meaningful manner. I sometimes over explain, and that tends to lead people to think I'm being condescending, as if they didn't understand me the first time.

There're pros and cons to text based communication. A pro is that you have time to ponder a well thought response. A con is missing non-verbal communication. A lot of nuance, as you say, gets lost in translation over text.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

To maintain coherency?

1 + 1 = 2 is about the only example I could think of, but then sometimes 1 + 1 = 10.

It always equals 10 in binary.
---

Kineth posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

To maintain coherency?

1 + 1 = 2 is about the only example I could think of, but then sometimes 1 + 1 = 10.

It always equals 10 in binary.

But, you're not always using binary (even though you actually always are).

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Kineth posted...

To maintain coherency?

1 + 1 = 2 is about the only example I could think of, but then sometimes 1 + 1 = 10.

It always equals 10 in binary.

But, you're not always using binary (even though you actually always are).

Eh, as long as both parties agree upon with numerical system they're using, that question only has one right answer. If they're gonna say that it doesn't equal the assumed correct answer, that means they're assuming information that wasn't disclosed, like 1.4 + 1.4 = 3.
---

I am back boys.Questionmarktarius posted...

Teddytalks posted...

Question 4: Are there certain axioms that must be accepted to maintain coherency?

Not really, no, but a few of them are very useful along the way. Axioms by nature are just condensed statements of theory, and are subject to the same scientific process which may or may not lead to eventual disproval.

The one axiom that i had in mind is rejecting logos, as without it, you cannot reason, and thus lose coherency. However, there are alternative models of realities that can come to a understanding of it without logos, as seen with some foundationalist beliefs. However, without an ultimate authority, I am not sure how you can reason without that axiom.

Edit: Even god in itself is axiomatic. I don't see how you can remain coherent without logos.

I like trains.
---

Kineth posted...

The ability to solve a problem is a measure of intelligence. I suppose you could say that these questions are testing a person's wisdom, rather than their intelligence, but I think that's a needless nuance.

As for question 4, that one is peculiarly phrased. To maintain coherency? The only axiom I could think of that would matter is one that suggests that you should be willing to acknowledge your own faults and/or be willing to further explain yourself. If you're coming across as incoherent to someone else and your goal is to maintain coherency, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if they're having trouble understanding you and on the other end, you have to be willing to make it easier to understand if you're the one that is actually being incoherent.

I suppose this could be summarized in that you should be willing to listen, in order to gauge the problem within the context, if you're looking to solve it.

Coherency means ability to be understood. Is there any axioms that necessitate acceptance?

That's a different question altogether. The only axiom I can think of in this case is the golden rule of treating others as you would treat yourself or how you'd like to be treated. That said, no one necessarily owes another person anything.
---

Intelligence ranks

Probably smarter than me, Uber brains- Question Markitus
Kineth

Gifted-

Smarty pants-

100+ IQ- Dying legacy

Double digits-

Room temperature IQ- Unholy mudcrab, I am the machete guy.

Kineth posted...

That's a different question altogether. The only axiom I can think of in this case is the golden rule of treating others as you would treat yourself or how you'd like to be treated. That said, no one necessarily owes another person anything.

That was illphrased on my part. A little off from having a heavy conversation with my friend. , Dull the mind tbh.

Let's skip that question and try again.

Question 4: Can a circular reasoning based argument ever be acceptable outside of epistemological understanding?

(Epistemological understanding means in the context of the justification of models of reality, as is the case with foundationalist beliefs, addressing the infinite regress argument, etc).

Teddytalks posted...

Question 4: Can a circular reasoning based argument ever be acceptable outside of epistemological understanding?

Possibly, if a causality paradox can be avoided.

As an example, "red" (or any other color) can't really be generally defined without circular logic.
The object is red because it's red. If we really wanted to go deep, would could define "red" as electromagnetic radiation in the general range of 620750nm wavelengths, but the common definition is about as circular as it gets.

I like this thread. I don't even care what the "correct" answer is - it's just a good excuse to think about random stuff, while sober this time.

Teddytalks posted...

Question 4: Can a circular reasoning based argument ever be acceptable outside of epistemological understanding?

Hmm. I was about to cite the Platonic method as a means of circular logic being effective, but that is mostly about justifying virtue and metaphysics, aka reality.

I will, however, say that it can be acceptable. If the other party is not getting the point the first time and you have to guide them down a different path to get back to the same point that you already stated, it's circular, but it, like the SPA philosophers, makes a point.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

I like this thread. I don't even care what the "correct" answer is - it's just a good excuse to think about random stuff, while sober this time.

Agreed.
---

I agree as well. I just wish i had more motivation atm, friend made me out of it and about to go pick up pizza and do laundry now. I like this topic so i will keep updating it. That last question i genuinely assumed no, but the argument is convincing enough. When I come back, I will make more foolproof questions.

tag
---