What "g/G" means, as Witty would say, is the role - function - the term plays in (our) discourse as I've already pointed out:That is, the word, "God," means what? — JerseyFlight
Of course, your interlocator will often propose a stipulative definition; but even 'undefined', she will use the term and that usage makes explicit the commitments and implications for her statements and arguments.Either one's 'ontological commitments' include or exclude an 'ultimate intentional agency' - explicitly as g/G or implicitly as weak anthropic / contra-mediocrity / sufficient reason principle - which conditions, or qualifies, any discursive critique or praxis. — 180 Proof
The forums were actually email based. But you could browse the logs. I’m not sure. It all seems so far away and hazy now. And usage was metered so you had to get on and off with messages downloaded before you racked up a bill. — apokrisis
wasn't usenet a thing back then? purely text-based discussion threads? — Wayfarer
the first Tucson “Towards a Science of Consciousness” — apokrisis
I found a snapshot of philosophy sites in 1995...
https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/LocalFile/PhiloServ.html — apokrisis
I'm not saying right or wrong, I just want to get knowledge and pleasure from a forum thread.The discussions on this forum seem to take on a life of their own. You are right that one should try not to derail a thread, but information is almost always introduced that inevitably leads to this conclusion. Even with the most intelligent people I have discoursed with on this forum this is the case.
You made the charge of "ego stroking," which is not an articulation I would use, but to each their own. In order for this to be the case, as I understand it, one must be driven, not by the desire to get at truth, but to prove something about themselves. I have consciously tried to strike out against this in my life as a thinker. One must not confuse vigor of dialogue for insecurity of ego.
"Whatever is started two hotshots take over the discussion." This is exceedingly generalized. You cannot mean that every time two people have repetition of conversation between themselves on a thread that this automatically proves they are doing something wrong? I am not sure what you mean by "take over?" I am open to being corrected if I am doing something wrong on a thread, but you will not simply be able to stick it to me through authority or your wounded feelings. I am not a moralist and don't much care for them.
These seem like cheap shot generalizations, poisoning of the well. If you disagree with something I say or am doing then confront me on it, not passive aggressive stuff like this. — JerseyFlight
That was pretty good for 95. — Ansiktsburk
Most of these newsgroups are misserable and frequently raged by flame wars.
The sci.philosophy.tech, sci.philosophy meta and talk.philosophy.misc newsgroups excel in layman's opinions, prejudices and other drivel. At regular times you'll find posts of people who think they've found the truth. Quite often the truth is a thesis of which undergraduates in philosophy know the refutations at the back of their hand. Other favourite topics are the existence of God, the meaning of life and propoposals for a theory of everything.
Every now and then you may find informed discussion of philosophy of mind and language at comp.ai.philosophy
WWW is a world wide system of hyperlinked texts. Hyperlinked means that the system allows you to jump from one text to another (not necessarily on the same computer) by activating marked (highlighted) phrases in a certain text.
To access the Web you need a special WWW-client, a so-called "browser". The browser allows you to read documents on the Web.
Most browsers also provide an interface to other parts of the net, like gopher, ftp, usenet, and an ever-increasing range of other systems. In addition, the browser will permit database searches.
you don't have to respond to every post in a thread — Judaka
:fire:↪180 Proof
I should here like to concede. The refutation of error, resistance to tyranny, these things are of vital importance to the quality of our species. The refutation of the error of God is exceedingly important, one of the most pressing counter-acts of ideology in the history of our species. — JerseyFlight
Maybe just remember that you don't have to respond to every post in a thread, you learn which posters you like to read and which aren't worth responding to. — Judaka
Kant is a Douchebag. — Wayfarer
The world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel — Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.