5 ms·

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not trying to engage you in a 'sophomoric' debate. I came to the existential philosophical argument from mathema

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not trying to engage you in a 'sophomoric' debate. I came to the existential philosophical argument from mathematics and the computer sciences, not the other way around. I started my interest in computing science through automating proof (mathematical and computational). I doubt you care, but it's more about looking at the big picture of software development versus the little picture. You can't build anything if you keep testing the first thing for every bug, including everything it was built with, including all the mathematics used to reason about it. But I'm sure there are two ways to respond to my comment: pretend you know what you are talking about, or admit you could be wrong and care to engage me in a real conversation. I've been down the same road hundreds of times on the internet, and it is hard to find people to talk to about things and meet in some kind of scientific, logical middle. But if that's not your thing, oesn't bother me if all you came here for was to prove yourself right about the noble ethics of your science. At least I'm no longer trapping my mind in a paradox of it's own creation. (Or am I? I never really know). Logic is very different from science, that's all I have to say. Rigor is for precision, not discovery.

jerf 12y ago
"I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not trying to engage you in a 'sophomoric' debate." Considering the entire rest of your message consists of you essentially trying to lord over me whatever superiority you seem to think you have, and not missing an opportunity to slide a snide comment in, which I'd also observe is consistent with your original post, I've come to the conclusion that the rest of your post belies this claim. You're being abrasive and abusive while trying to pretend to be so much more open minded. No sale. I recognize that tactic and refuse to engage with it. I'm sticking with my original assessment; you're being too sophomoric to engage with, and I reject your attempts to psychology me into engaging with you in the presupposed frame of your superiority.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  Apologies, I would not interpret receiving my post back to me in the same way (I do not think, I usually read my posts back to myself and pretend I am talking to myself to try to understand how another person may take it, which I realize is fairly biased given my potentially unique perspective on reality). Human socialization is very difficult for me. I don't like psychology.

jerf 12y ago

"I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not trying to engage you in a 'sophomoric' debate." Considering the entire rest of your message consists of you essentially trying to lord over me whatever superiority you seem to think you have, and not missing an opportunity to slide a snide comment in, which I'd also observe is consistent with your original post, I've come to the conclusion that the rest of your post belies this claim. You're being abrasive and abusive while trying to pretend to be so much more open minded. No sale. I recognize that tactic and refuse to engage with it. I'm sticking with my original assessment; you're being too sophomoric to engage with, and I reject your attempts to psychology me into engaging with you in the presupposed frame of your superiority.

drcomputer 12y ago
Apologies, I would not interpret receiving my post back to me in the same way (I do not think, I usually read my posts back to myself and pretend I am talking to myself to try to understand how another person may take it, which I realize is fairly biased given my potentially unique perspective on reality). Human socialization is very difficult for me. I don't like psychology.