User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 55

  1. #31
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post


    Predicting that there will be a recession in the future is a meaningless prediction. Here let me make a prediction, "There will be another recession in the future". That sort of prediction is not interesting. What I am interested in is

    a) How close was he at predicting the right time?

    b) If he was fairly close, then how did he do it?

    Let me reclarify what I said. They don't reveal the specifics in the vids I provided because the shows I linked are geared towards a general audience. These guys have their own books, projects, etc. that detail everything they do and all the reasoning behind why they think what they do.

    Peter Schiff predicted this coming within the next year or so, from 2006. Gerald Celente predicted the "panic of '08" and "crash of '09" at least a year before each. As far as the economy is concerned, you can predict a direction the economy will take within a reasonable time period and it will still be far more correct than the thought process of people who do not see it coming at all, plain and simple. This isn't psychic shit, this is discerning what actions in the present will amount to in the near future.

    If you wish to know exactly what trends and economic factors allowed them to make the predictions they did, then you should contact them or seek it out. Otherwise, NEITHER of us knows the intricacies, only the general reasons behind their thinking, which has thus far proven correct. If anything that should be a sign to you to actually investigate further into what they are saying, and view for yourself the factors that allowed them to be correct.

  2. #32
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    So only statements about this precise moment are true? What about statements about the past? And what does observability have to do with anything? Would a statement cease to be true because nobody existed or everyone was blind or nobody cared to observe? Some statements are about the future, and they either correspond to the facts of the future or they do not. Some must be true, because all cannot be false (can P and not-P be false simultaneously?).

    You keep conflating the truth of a statement with our ability to observe or prove that it is true. But that is irrelevent. And I pre-emptively responded to such an objection in my previous posts. And what the word 'definable' is doing in your post I do not understand; qualities are definable regardless of whether they can be observed (come to think of it, what is an undefinable quality?).
    My logic is simple:

    -It is only possible to make true statements about things which exist.
    -The future does not yet exist.

    Secondly:

    -Statements about things which might come to exist are predictions.

    You consistently display the belief that human beings can think a thing into existence.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #33
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Like TLL said, your reasoning only works if you're a determinist. (Or vice versa.)

    I'm a determinist, so I totally agree.
    My reasoning only works if it is valid, and it is not valid because you or I are determinists.

    The whole free will vs. determinism debate is completely absurd. For there to be free will, there can be no true statements about future decisions (or any rule/law which predicts such statements), otherwise the future has been "determined". But there can only be no true statements about future decisions if there are no future decisions, which also means, of course, that there can be no free will. In other words, there is no free will either way.

    But is that what people ordinarily mean when they talk about free will? Is the existence of true statements about the future so bad? Are people suddenly not responsible for their actions? How would that even follow? And besides, if there exist true statements about future decisions (and therefore, laws which predict them), then decisions are actually being made. They may not satisfy the philosophers lofty and paradoxical notion of free will, but perhaps they decisions satisfy a more everyday and sensible concept of free will.

    Determinism is trivially true and free will-ism is absurd. It's ethical determinism which is really puzzling. but why not simply begin trying to understand what decisions actually are, since they are obviously not what defies the laws of logic. What, for example, seperates decision-making systems, like humans, from other objects? What are the objective characteristics of a system which considers alternatives and selects a course of action? We all understand how natural selection works: would anyone claim that nothing is really selected because it is possible to predict what will be selected?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #34
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    My logic is simple:

    -It is only possible to make true statements about things which exist.
    -The future does not yet exist.

    Secondly:

    -Statements about things which might come to exist are predictions.

    You consistently display the belief that human beings can think a thing into existence.
    Human beings can think a thing into existence, in a sense. We do it all the time. For example, does London exist? You know, the place that was bombed by the Nazi's during WWII. Oh, but wait, that's not true, because that place doesn't exist anymore, right? But maybe when we talk about 'London' we are not just talking about a physical location, but an idea, an abstraction which transcends the present and about which true statements can be made. What about propositions. Have you ever tried to find a proposition in the world? Are they physical objects, something material? You might point to a particular statement, but many different statements can refer to the same proposition--none is the proposition, but merely a reference to the proposition. But where is the proposition, can you find one? Can you make true statements about propositions? Do they exist?

    The future may not "exist" yet, but a statement about the future may nonetheless be true.

    It is not necessary that something exist, in the sense which you use the term, for true statements to be made about it.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #35
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Human beings can talk a thing into existence, in a sense. We do it all the time. For example, does London exist? You know, the place that was bombed by the Nazi's during WWII. Oh, but wait, that's not true, because that place doesn't exist anymore, right? But maybe when we talk about 'London' we are not just talking about a physical location, but an idea, an abstraction which transcends the present and about which true statements can be made. What about propositions. Have you ever tried to find a proposition in the world? Are they physical objects, something material? You might point to a particular statement, but many different statements can refer to the same proposition--none is the proposition, but merely a reference to the proposition. But where is the proposition, can you find one? Can you make true statements about propositions? Do they exist?
    You are correct. The London of the mid- to late-1940s no longer exists. Propositions, also, do not exist. However, it does not follow that London exists only as an abstract in the minds of human beings. Should we all disappear in a puff of smoke tonight, another species could come along in a spaceship and determine that a large collection of tightly-packed buildings, etc., exists. (Of course, they would not know the combination of noises the now non-existent former inhabitants of this particular planet referred to this collection of buildings and other things by.)

    The future may not "exist" yet, but a statement about the future may nonetheless be true.
    If, in the future, a biotech company creates unicorns for rich parents to give to their children, it will become possible to make true statements about these unicorns. As of present, any statement made about unicorns can be neither true nor false; it is a statement and nothing more.

    Similarly, while it is certainly possible to make statements about the future that ultimately prove to be true, they are statements about a thing which does not exist. They are neither true nor untrue; they are statements and nothing more.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #36
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Mycroft,

    I should also note that you're wrong according to the current laws of physics. If I were moving toward you at close to the speed of light, then your entire life might transpire in the time it takes me to eat a chocolate bar. In other words, for some beam of light in the universe, you're entire life is happening right now, even if its crawling by for you. Or at least I think. Perhaps a physicist could correct me here.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #37
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Mycroft,

    I should also note that you're wrong according to the current laws of physics. If I were moving toward you at close to the speed of light, then your entire life might transpire in the time it takes me to eat a chocolate bar. In other words, for some beam of light in the universe, you're entire life is happening right now, even if its crawling by for you. Or at least I think. Perhaps a physicist could correct me here.
    If there were a sentient beam of light, you are correct: our experience of the passage of time would be different. However, we would both exist in the same time: this sentient beam of light would observe my actions in incredibly swift passage, but it would not observe my future actions.

    But now we arrive at a point where entertaining a thought requires hypothetical sentient beams of light.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #38
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    You are correct. The London of the mid- to late-1940s no longer exists. Propositions, also, do not exist. However, it does not follow that London exists only as an abstract in the minds of human beings. Should we all disappear in a puff of smoke tonight, another species could come along in a spaceship and determine that a large collection of tightly-packed buildings, etc., exists. (Of course, they would not know the combination of noises the now non-existent former inhabitants of this particular planet referred to this collection of buildings and other things by.)
    But according to you we can only make true statements about what exists (physically) right now. So it's impossible for you to say something true about some hypothetical species coming along in the future and inhabitating an empty city once called London. I therefore reject everything you are saying on your behalf.

    If, in the future, a biotech company creates unicorns for rich parents to give to their children, it will become possible to make true statements about these unicorns. As of present, any statement made about unicorns can be neither true nor false; it is a statement and nothing more.
    So, that unicorns are mythical creatures with a single horn is neither a true nor false statement? What about the statement 'unicorns do not exist', that's a statement about unicorns, but is it true, false, or neither?

    Similarly, while it is certainly possible to make statements about the future that ultimately prove to be true, they are statements about a thing which does not exist. They are neither true nor untrue; they are statements and nothing more.
    Why does a statement have to be proven to be true? If we all disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow, would a statement which would have been true no longer be true because nobody is around to prove it? Isn't a statement about the future that will be true (i.e. will eventually describe the present state-of-affairs) not just a true statement about the future? (i.e. describes what will eventually become the present state-of-affairs).
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #39
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If there were a sentient beam of light, you are correct: our experience of the passage of time would be different. However, we would both exist in the same time: this sentient beam of light would observe my actions in incredibly swift passage, but it would not observe my future actions.

    But now we arrive at a point where entertaining a thought requires hypothetical sentient beams of light.
    Again, the truth of a statement does not depend upon you or a sentient beam of light being able to prove or observe it. If you die, there are still true statements; your sentience has nothing to do with it.

    And how fast does your life have to pass by for such a beam of light for it to count as the present? One second? Half a second? Quarter of a second? Do we want to make this any stupider?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #40
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    But according to you we can only make true statements about what exists (physically) right now. So it's impossible for you to say something true about some hypothetical species coming along in the future and inhabitating an empty city once called London. I therefore reject everything you are saying on your behalf.
    That this was merely an illustration and not a proposition was evident. You're being argumentative for its sake.

    So, that unicorns are mythical creatures with a single horn is neither a true nor false statement? What about the statement 'unicorns do not exist', that's a statement about unicorns, but is it true, false, or neither?
    This would be a statement about the existence of unicorns, not about unicorns themselves.

    Why does a statement have to be proven to be true? If we all disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow, would a statement which would have been true no longer be true because nobody is around to prove it? Isn't a statement about the future that will be true (i.e. will eventually describe the present state-of-affairs) not just a true statement about the future? (i.e. describes what will eventually become the present state-of-affairs).
    Whatever existent the statement pertained to would continue to exist in whatever form it continued to exist in.

    Again, the truth of a statement does not depend upon you or a sentient beam of light being able to prove or observe it. If you die, there are still true statements; your sentience has nothing to do with it.
    What would continue to exist is the universe; statements require beings to make them. There is existence. Sentient beings can make statements pertaining to existence which are either accurate (true) or inaccurate (untrue). However, to make such statements, they need to be about a thing which exists.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

Similar Threads

  1. How well is Obama doing with the economy?
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 01:30 PM
  2. Pelosi calls for birth control to stimulate the economy (eugenics?)
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 01:20 AM
  3. Citigroup about the economy and gold price
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 10:58 PM
  4. I suspect that I don't understand the economy
    By Eileen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO