Forums
Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism
Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825
Cthris
said
:
Rifleavenger said :
Addendum: If the method is so disruptive that it renders the average member of society unable to operate from the pain for over a cumulative year, then it is less advanced.
So to be clear, longevity is not the only factor to consider in societal advancement, we also have to take into consideration their ability to operate? Well, a group of immortal vegetables can hardly be called a society. Society requires interaction between members, and interaction requires the ability to operate at least mentally if not physically. So yes.
What qualifies as operation does not require the ability to choose/free will (a computer following its programming is still operating), but does exclude states such as dead, catatonic, braindead, sleeping, and being so wracked with pain that one cannot clearly move or think.
Cthris said :
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
When your experiments took place thousands to millions to billions of years ago, you work with what you have. Some of the issue is that taxonomy was originally based entirely on morphology, but genetics has changed that. Most modern cladistics try to sort taxa into monophyletic clades (those where all members share a common ancestor). The ironic issue there is that fossil species past a certain age can only be identified by morphology.
Rifleavenger said :
Addendum: If the method is so disruptive that it renders the average member of society unable to operate from the pain for over a cumulative year, then it is less advanced.
So to be clear, longevity is not the only factor to consider in societal advancement, we also have to take into consideration their ability to operate? Well, a group of immortal vegetables can hardly be called a society. Society requires interaction between members, and interaction requires the ability to operate at least mentally if not physically. So yes.
What qualifies as operation does not require the ability to choose/free will (a computer following its programming is still operating), but does exclude states such as dead, catatonic, braindead, sleeping, and being so wracked with pain that one cannot clearly move or think.
Cthris said :
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
When your experiments took place thousands to millions to billions of years ago, you work with what you have. Some of the issue is that taxonomy was originally based entirely on morphology, but genetics has changed that. Most modern cladistics try to sort taxa into monophyletic clades (those where all members share a common ancestor). The ironic issue there is that fossil species past a certain age can only be identified by morphology.
22-Mar-2017 17:43:11 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 17:46:48 by Rifleavenger
Rifleavenger
said
:
Cthris said :
Rifleavenger said :
Addendum: If the method is so disruptive that it renders the average member of society unable to operate from the pain for over a cumulative year, then it is less advanced.
So to be clear, longevity is not the only factor to consider in societal advancement, we also have to take into consideration their ability to operate? Well, a group of immortal vegetables can hardly be called a society. Society requires interaction between members, and interaction requires the ability to operate at least mentally if not physically. So yes.
What qualifies as operation does not require the ability to choose/free will (a computer following its programming is still operating), but does exclude states such as dead, catatonic, braindead, sleeping, and being so wracked with pain that one cannot clearly move or think.
Don't worry. I picked up on your use of operation the first time you said it. I was impressed by the word sophistication.
But thank you, this exactly what I striving for. The metric must be multi-faceted. So far we have two facets, longevity and operation. Let's leave longevity alone for now.
Would a society of people who live 100 years who live in pods for 50 years of this time (Thus not operating) be less advanced than a society who also lives for 100 years but operates all 100 years?
Cthris said :
Rifleavenger said :
Addendum: If the method is so disruptive that it renders the average member of society unable to operate from the pain for over a cumulative year, then it is less advanced.
So to be clear, longevity is not the only factor to consider in societal advancement, we also have to take into consideration their ability to operate? Well, a group of immortal vegetables can hardly be called a society. Society requires interaction between members, and interaction requires the ability to operate at least mentally if not physically. So yes.
What qualifies as operation does not require the ability to choose/free will (a computer following its programming is still operating), but does exclude states such as dead, catatonic, braindead, sleeping, and being so wracked with pain that one cannot clearly move or think.
Don't worry. I picked up on your use of operation the first time you said it. I was impressed by the word sophistication.
But thank you, this exactly what I striving for. The metric must be multi-faceted. So far we have two facets, longevity and operation. Let's leave longevity alone for now.
Would a society of people who live 100 years who live in pods for 50 years of this time (Thus not operating) be less advanced than a society who also lives for 100 years but operates all 100 years?
22-Mar-2017 17:50:03
Giras
said
:
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
22-Mar-2017 17:52:44
Rifleavenger
said
:
Cthris said :
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
When your experiments took place thousands to millions to billions of years ago, you work with what you have. Some of the issue is that taxonomy was originally based entirely on morphology, but genetics has changed that. Most modern cladistics try to sort taxa into monophyletic clades (those where all members share a common ancestor). The ironic issue there is that fossil species past a certain age can only be identified by morphology.
It's more of a philosophical problem. Taxonomy, morphology, and genealogy are some of the worst culprits for failing to account for a nominalist critique.
Cthris said :
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
When your experiments took place thousands to millions to billions of years ago, you work with what you have. Some of the issue is that taxonomy was originally based entirely on morphology, but genetics has changed that. Most modern cladistics try to sort taxa into monophyletic clades (those where all members share a common ancestor). The ironic issue there is that fossil species past a certain age can only be identified by morphology.
It's more of a philosophical problem. Taxonomy, morphology, and genealogy are some of the worst culprits for failing to account for a nominalist critique.
22-Mar-2017 17:55:29
Cthris
said
:
Giras said :
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
I suspected that's what you were aiming at.
I'd love to keep debating with you anyways, since it's far more interesting than faction wars, but sadly I've been keeping myself from the research I ought to be doing. So I'm afraid I'll probably depart for now. I need to have something to show my adviser in 2 hours if I don't want to really make them mad.
Cthris said :
It's more of a philosophical problem. Taxonomy, morphology, and genealogy are some of the worst culprits for failing to account for a nominalist critique. If I had more time I'd like to hear an elaboration on this, though I doubt you'd get me to stop using phylogenetics. Paleontology has few enough methods to work with as is.
Giras said :
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
I suspected that's what you were aiming at.
I'd love to keep debating with you anyways, since it's far more interesting than faction wars, but sadly I've been keeping myself from the research I ought to be doing. So I'm afraid I'll probably depart for now. I need to have something to show my adviser in 2 hours if I don't want to really make them mad.
Cthris said :
It's more of a philosophical problem. Taxonomy, morphology, and genealogy are some of the worst culprits for failing to account for a nominalist critique. If I had more time I'd like to hear an elaboration on this, though I doubt you'd get me to stop using phylogenetics. Paleontology has few enough methods to work with as is.
22-Mar-2017 17:56:26 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 17:58:41 by Rifleavenger
Rifleavenger
said
:
Also, in the absence of a better option, what is wrong with arbitrarily setting a given civilization as the "origin" in a multivariate space? Further consideration relative to that point would still show objective, absolute distances in the variables assessed. This does leave the problem of how to convert that multivariate space into a single objective measure. Maybe an ordination would work, finding the axis of greatest variation between all civilizations?
Also clever. Very similar to Drew's post. However, how would you prove that each variable objectively relates to advancement unless advancement is completely subjective. If advancement is purely subjective than it only exists in our minds. Thus we cannot say with any certainty we are more advanced than the dark ages. [/quote]
Rifleavenger said :
Yes, assuming all else is equal the pod race would be less advanced. Their technology only gets to the base of another species, which has an additional 50 years per individual to work on advancing itself further.
Great. Now let's say that while the pod people are extremely efficient operators and match the non pod people despite only operating for half the time. They are now equal yes? and do you mean to include general technology as another facet, or technology only in relation to an increase in operation and longevity?
Edit: Ah okay, well have fun then lol. If anyone else would like to try to prove that modern society is objectively more advanced using a absolute metric I am down
If not, then I guess we are stuck with having to accept that societal advancement is simply subjective and Zamorak's philosophy has no objective basis.
Also, in the absence of a better option, what is wrong with arbitrarily setting a given civilization as the "origin" in a multivariate space? Further consideration relative to that point would still show objective, absolute distances in the variables assessed. This does leave the problem of how to convert that multivariate space into a single objective measure. Maybe an ordination would work, finding the axis of greatest variation between all civilizations?
Also clever. Very similar to Drew's post. However, how would you prove that each variable objectively relates to advancement unless advancement is completely subjective. If advancement is purely subjective than it only exists in our minds. Thus we cannot say with any certainty we are more advanced than the dark ages. [/quote]
Rifleavenger said :
Yes, assuming all else is equal the pod race would be less advanced. Their technology only gets to the base of another species, which has an additional 50 years per individual to work on advancing itself further.
Great. Now let's say that while the pod people are extremely efficient operators and match the non pod people despite only operating for half the time. They are now equal yes? and do you mean to include general technology as another facet, or technology only in relation to an increase in operation and longevity?
Edit: Ah okay, well have fun then lol. If anyone else would like to try to prove that modern society is objectively more advanced using a absolute metric I am down
If not, then I guess we are stuck with having to accept that societal advancement is simply subjective and Zamorak's philosophy has no objective basis.
22-Mar-2017 18:03:16 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 18:11:38 by Cthris
Cthris
said
:
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
Genealogy is not a science; taxonomy is what governs the the classification of organisms, and it is extremely well-defined. Your criticisms of it are worthless... but of course, we've gone over that topic before.
Rifleavenger said :
If I had more time I'd like to hear an elaboration on this, though I doubt you'd get me to stop using phylogenetics. Paleontology has few enough methods to work with as is. Don't bother, Rifle. His criticisms of biology are purely philosophical and have no bearing on the science. His conflation of genealogy and taxonomy should've been a clue.
Cthris said :
If anyone else would like to try to prove that modern society is objectively more advanced using a absolute metric I am down
If not, then I guess we are stuck with having to accept that societal advancement is simply subjective and Zamorak's philosophy has no objective basis.
Do you even believe in objectivity or absolute metrics?
Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.
Fair enough, you got me
In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered.
Genealogy is not a science; taxonomy is what governs the the classification of organisms, and it is extremely well-defined. Your criticisms of it are worthless... but of course, we've gone over that topic before.
Rifleavenger said :
If I had more time I'd like to hear an elaboration on this, though I doubt you'd get me to stop using phylogenetics. Paleontology has few enough methods to work with as is. Don't bother, Rifle. His criticisms of biology are purely philosophical and have no bearing on the science. His conflation of genealogy and taxonomy should've been a clue.
Cthris said :
If anyone else would like to try to prove that modern society is objectively more advanced using a absolute metric I am down
If not, then I guess we are stuck with having to accept that societal advancement is simply subjective and Zamorak's philosophy has no objective basis.
Do you even believe in objectivity or absolute metrics?
Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.
22-Mar-2017 19:19:44 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 19:46:26 by Raleirosen
Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825 Back to Top