Skeptics asked not to post
- Thread starter Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
- Start date
I tried to make a point about your view of the value of likes/dislikes, i showed how easy it is to skew the numbers.
If i were an administrator, i would rather ban people for using insulting language than for showing a weakness in some feature of the forum.
The only thing wrong with the 'box' in which we are posting right now, is the rude way you are posting over here.
You didn't make a point, though. Paul's number of dislikes are spread out over multiple people, and mine are spread out over 2 ( 59 of which are from you, a single person ). And, as in the case of Rosebud, apparently a ban-able offense. So my guess is you receive your second ban on the Skeptiko forums.
I appreciate that you're trying to make a point, though. It really saddens me to see someone spend a whole ten minutes stalking someone's post, disliking everything. I recommend a hobby, or something.
Well, mine are mostly from Rosebud, chuck.drake (who hasn't posted in a month), and K9!, who should be asked to stop.
The whole voting thing is silly.
~~ Paul
My point was that Bart still did not prove his point. 59 downvotes ( 97% ) from one person in no way takes away from the fact that your opinions here are generally disregarded and your presence not well accepted. Based on interactions with other members over three years, it seems that most of the heavy-posting proponents on this board would love nothing more to see Linda, Arouet, and you ( in that order) gone. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that sentiment, as I see you three as relatively mild.
The remedy this situation, Alex has given you guys free reign to post in this subforum as you please. Since this is his forum, he gets to make the rules ( whether we agree with that sentiment or not ). Individuals like Bart V, and really, will most likely see the ban-hammer soon enough ( so this isn't applicable ), but you guys are free to have your own forum to post in. I still don't understand why this is a sentiment that you don't agree with. If you see a post in a subforum that you may like to participate in, simply repost the topic here where people that want to interact with you can interact with you. The reason for this rule lies in the fact that you guys couldn't seem to understand the concept of not posting in the Haven ( of the last forum ) when you were asked to not post there.
Do you feel that this seems to be a fair fix, knowing that most of this forum is proponent-based?
Can we all just agree that this argument between you and Bart is pointless?
Karma farming is sighed over extensively at Reddit, who has to deal with exponentially more people than Skeptiko and is plagued by people pandering for likes/mobbing dislikes. Facebook only allows likes (and that still gets gamed.) Stack Overflow puts a social economy cost on dislikes (which kinda, you know, stop what Bart did from happening.)
The fact that Alex et all insist on keeping that module of Xenforo turned on, despite the widespread issues known about karma systems, means they simply don't care. There are bigger fish in the sea and that have languished over this same problem; you've got two options (the both of you):
1) Tell Alex to turn it off.
2) Deal with it.
The haven of the last forum was rarely used by either side.
The point wasn't about karma farming, it was about the amount of people who disagree with Paul's assessment. I simply used likes/dislikes to make the point that most people don't see Paul's contributions in a positive light. Bart went all 4-year old temper tantrum and spammed me with 59 dislikes. The argument wasn't about dislikes, it was about forum wide-opinion.
As to your next comment, we had to create an invite-only haven to fix that situation because they couldn't follow the rules. That's the precise reason why no one posted anymore on the haven in skeptiko; everyone who was a major poster on the haven simply began posting in what we dubbed as the secret haven. At times that subforum rivaled and surpassed the activity on the main forum. Since this is already common knowledge ( it was let out about a year ago? ), rules were just put into place in this forum so that we wouldn't have to go through that bullshit again.
David Bailey
Member
I am open to the possibility that mind==brain, so in a sense the difference between us is how we weigh the evidence. BTW, I decided to start re-reading Penrose's book, "Shadows of the Mind" because he spends a lot of time refuting arguments that people have put forward to his Gödel argument.
I just think that if science generally treated mind==brain as a hypothesis (which is what it is) rather than a fact - and therefore encouraged the collection of data that refutes that hypothesis, we would be a lot further forward. I also think that anyone who estimates that we may need 200 years (your estimate a year or two back - so maybe 198 to go:D )) of ongoing research before we understand consciousness in physical terms, should realise why alternative ideas have some real force - and that is even before we consider the 'woo' evidence that this site is focused on!
Well do you go to Christian sites or flat earth sites or whatever? We only have so much time, and it is impossible to assess every possible potential source of ideas! When I thought that consciousness was computational/emergent, I simply had no interest in the paranormal - I would never have spent any time at all on a site like this.
David
Obiwan
Member
It's not really disliking the member is it? Just the post they vote on usually?
I don't understand how you're getting from four people downvoting me to "most people."
~~ Paul
Then make sure you read this paper by Feferman:
http://philpapers.org/rec/FEFPGA
Here's a list:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/referenc.html
I think mind = brain is treated as a hypothesis. The reason it appears to be treated as fact is because no one can figure out how to study mind /= brain. Feferman (above) is an example of a mathematician who thinks computational models of the mind are implausible.
I have spent time on ID forums. But they bring down the ban hammer pretty quickly.
~~ Paul
Haruhi
New
I think that's a mistake, many scientists take as fact that the mind disappears after brain death. And there are many ways of studying the hypothesis mind / = brain: experiments with people able to have OBEs at will, experiments about exteriorization of sensitivity,experiments about mediums...
Of course many do, but you'll find many different opinions on many different aspects of science. I'm sure you can find a large number of scientists who are not convinced that mind = brain. Note that you listed various experiments that you believe test mind /= brain, so obviously there are scientists performing those experiments. Perhaps you just want more, but you can't dictate what scientists do.
~~ Paul
I don't get how four main people and a smattering of other people turned into only four people?
A "smattering" of down votes from other people wouldn't even give the superficial appearance of validity to the claim that Paul was unpopular. Of course, nobody has bothered to establish that lots of down votes says something about the value of someone's ideas in the first place. But it's pretty easy to get away with making claims on the basis of superficial validity around here, as long as it disparages non-proponents. Still, I'm surprised that anyone takes this seriously given that it's pretty obvious the system has been gamed.
Linda
Liberty
Member
Part of the problem for me is - I just cannot understand how someone who is convinced that his decisions are either random or determined, can ever give honest analysis to controversial evidence.
Secondly, and more importantly, as far as I know, Alex ain't making any money off of this site. If he was , and constantly asking for donations and stuff, I'd say anything was fair game. As it is, we're just all guests on a journey of honest discovery.
Secondly, and more importantly, as far as I know, Alex ain't making any money off of this site. If he was , and constantly asking for donations and stuff, I'd say anything was fair game. As it is, we're just all guests on a journey of honest discovery.
Obiwan
Member
Understood. I do wonder if some take it the wrong way sometimes though and view it as somewhat personal. If we disagree it's better to post why I guess rather than hit the button :).
Agreement probably needs no qualification. "Like" seems positive, "dislike" might benefit from a reason. It's probably just my way of thinking lol.
