Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs > And what did the princess do that was so horrible?

Topic: Imaginary nodes  (Read 607 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #25
What is the appeal in responding to Socrates?
Well there's always the forlorn hope that he might actually reply. I mean even Pahu does that from time to time. (Its always a copy and paste that's out of date or obviously wrong, but still,. its better than Sucky manages.
Why do I bother?

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #26
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?

  • nesb
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #27
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?

I can't figure it out. I think he's just randomly obsessed.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #28
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?

He once hypothesized that bats, not birds, were "smaller versions of ugly flying creatures" (i.e., pterosaurs).  And that cetaceans were descended from ichthyosaurs via a mosasaur intermediate stage.  Call it the locomotory hypothesis.  Modern flying animals cannot be descended from non-flying ancestors, they must be descended from prehistoric flying animals.  By the same token, modern large swimming animals must be descended from prehistoric large swimming animals.  Admittedly, it might be convincing as hell to 4-year-olds.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #29
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?

There is so much I would love to know about Socrates.

As far as I can tell, he's got some oddball amalgamation of ID/Creationism/Ancient Astronaut theory of the universe.

This in turn leads to the idea that for him to be right, mainstream science (or at least mainstream science that interferes with his belief. You don't see imbeciles like Socrates or Hawkins arguing against how microwaves work or more readily demonstrable laws of physics) must be wrong. Evolution happens to be a very noticeable affront to his beliefs so he has to show this to be wrong. If you pay close attention to his ramblings he's not really arguing birds evolved from pterosaurs, but that they were guided that way (God? Designer? Aliens? Who knows?) and mainstream science is so wrong about bird evolution so how could it be right about evolution.

As to why specifically birds and pterosaurs? My guess is it's because it's easy to convince himself of it. They both fly and they're both archosaurian(I think) so there's going to be enough similarities and convergent evolution  flight features to maintain the fantasy. He'd have a much tougher time maintaining the fantasy that bumble bees "developed" from sabretooth tigers.

In fact the whole pterosaurs-bird thing started because he thought it made more sense that "ugly flying creatures" shared a path i.e. Pterosaurs-bats-birds. In the beginning he tried to make bats fit in his incredibly child like "first cut" of the theory. But he soon dropped bats because it was probably too difficult to maintain the fantasy and because somehow (lord knows how!) someone managed to convince him that bats didn't fit. (They failed with birds obviously).

AFAIK, the ptero-bird thing was the first thing that grabbed his attention in his initial internet forays. My theory, especially if you read the Yann play he wrote, he thought he'd waltz onto the Internet as this great mind that would create awe with his gentle brilliance and turn mainstream science upside down much in the same way he was able to convert Yann with a few poignant questions.  Of course this didn't happen, and as seems to be the case with these types, they dig in even harder. Had he started off with the Mosasaur-whale thing, there'd probably be a mosasaurnet.blogspot.ca instead.

And finally, my own pet theory that I'd love a real psychologist to research one day, is that there's a form of mental illness that only manifests itself on the internet or under a shroud of anonymity. Socrates, Hawkins, Pahu, Humber, Jerome (if he's for real) all suffer from it. So my underlying theory as to why pterosaur to birds...

It's because Socrates is nuts.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #30
Does anyone know why he's obsessed with the pterosaur->bird thing? Does he consider it more biblical than the consensus view or something?
Here is my theory.
I think he has some sort of notion of platonic ideals expressing themselves over time. He picked birds as an example of the current form of platonic flight, that developed from more primitive expressions of the same platonic ideal. The same platonic ideal strives to express itself all the way down to the primal ooze. So the entire bird lineage were always flyers. Birds must have come from earlier fliers, pterosaurs flew, dinosaurs did not. He had whales from plesiosaurs/mosasaurs/ichthyosaurs episode too.

Each species expresses its own ideal, but less perfectly in the past.
No tree of life, all parallel lines, lined up along the Great Chain of Being.
He thinks we are not ready for this deep truth, and only when we discover it ourselves will we accept it. A first step can be stopping to pretend that cladistics works.
He is trying to help us with that. Like the angels in his play. Like the genetic engineers from the quantum plenum didling with Neanderthal DNA to help them become white people.
  • Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 03:23:07 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #31
Yea he's definitely got some hippy-dippy new age horseshit going on

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #32
This thread titled "imaginary nudes" has been quintessentially disappointing.

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #33

I thought it was about imaginary noodles. I am disappoint too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBW1FnNd0ms
"You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. Nobody talks about that."

  • Monad
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #34
It's a Platonic essence thing.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #35
It's a Platonic essence thing.
Well that's dumb.

But you know what's cool - and I use this in teaching about virus structure! - is Platonic solids.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #36
It's a Platonic essence thing.
Well that's dumb.

But you know what's cool - and I use this in teaching about virus structure! - is Platonic solids.


How do you know they're platonic? I saw a dodecahedron fuck an icosahedron hard during one really epic D&D session. Platonic, they weren't.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #37
It's a Platonic essence thing.
Well that's dumb.

But you know what's cool - and I use this in teaching about virus structure! - is Platonic solids.


How do you know they're platonic? I saw a dodecahedron fuck an icosahedron hard during one really epic D&D session. Platonic, they weren't.
That's kinda working too hard for a joke.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #38
That platonic ideals thing is present in that :staregonk: play :staregonk: he wrote, so that definitely seems to be part of it. So he originally included "ugly" in the category and linked pterosaurs to bats not only because they both flew but because he thought of them both as being ugly? That's really amusing to me if it's true. Does he think birds are ugly too, or did he drop that part with the bats?

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #39
That platonic ideals thing is present in that :staregonk: play :staregonk: he wrote, so that definitely seems to be part of it. So he originally included "ugly" in the category and linked pterosaurs to bats not only because they both flew but because he thought of them both as being ugly? That's really amusing to me if it's true. Does he think birds are ugly too, or did he drop that part with the bats?

I'll dig up the actual quote later, but he did in fact say he thought pterosaurs-bats-birds because they were all "ugly flying creatures" and it made more sense that "ugly flying creatures" share an ancestor-descendant relationship than the consensus mainstream scientific view. Really, he basically has a 4 year old's view of biology.

Edit:

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=666085&highlight=Ugly#post666085
  • Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 10:12:22 AM by madmardigan

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #40
I mean I can see if you're talking about like turkey vultures or something, but nobody thinks, say, bluebirds are ugly, right? Though I guess if you're a birds-are-birds YEC, especially if you're also a platonist, you inevitably end up committing to putting things in some pretty weird boxes.

ETA: That linked post kinda implies that he thinks bats lost their ugly when they became birds. Although it's not entirely clear (obviously).

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #41
This thread titled "imaginary nudes" has been quintessentially disappointing.


I thought it was about imaginary noodles. I am disappoint too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBW1FnNd0ms
Quite frankly Doobie, I''m disappointed in your lack of perverse imagination. At least Photon came through with something kinky. 
Are we there yet?

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #42
Also his chosen name is significant. He imagines himself using the Socratic method, teaching by asking questions.
Answering questions is just not something he is supposed to do. If he thinks someone needs an answer he will say something like "can anybody help so-and-so with this?". When his students do answer for him and it's not what he wants the are obviously pretending. And when they are playing along, actually pretending, they are "beginning to get it".
It may look like he does not answer questions because he is a coward afraid of embarrassing himself, but he is not, he doesn't even notice when that happens.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #43
...his students ...
:rofl:  It is to laugh!

Seriously, though...  It's hard not to wonder whether someone with such a bizarre mode of human interaction - if you can call it that - online can manage to appear normal enough IRL to be minimally functional.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #44
It's a Platonic essence thing.
Well that's dumb.

But you know what's cool - and I use this in teaching about virus structure! - is Platonic solids.


How do you know they're platonic? I saw a dodecahedron fuck an icosahedron hard during one really epic D&D session. Platonic, they weren't.
Barbarians rarely commit themselves to platonic affairs. ;)
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #45
...his students ...
:rofl:  It is to laugh!

Seriously, though...  It's hard not to wonder whether someone with such a bizarre mode of human interaction - if you can call it that - online can manage to appear normal enough IRL to be minimally functional.
Perhaps internet anonymity emboldens him to better express his platonic ideal, an angelic helper guiding people to truth with subtle prompting. Something that is too hard in the real world. He certainly gets very upset when people strain his delusions and connect the lofty angel's conduit to a real man.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #46
But he isn't apparently worried about anonymity.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Faid
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #47
He just pretends to be. He thinks it gives him an excuse to be a dick.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #48
But he isn't apparently worried about anonymity.
He once had a total meltdown when people used his real name, inadvertently revealed by himself (I think).

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Imaginary nodes
Reply #49
This thread titled "imaginary nudes" has been quintessentially disappointing.


I thought it was about imaginary noodles. I am disappoint too.


Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quite frankly Doobie, I''m disappointed in your lack of perverse imagination. At least Photon came through with something kinky. 

:noo:
"You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. Nobody talks about that."