Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Number one on the no-fly list

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Anti-Philosophy Sunglasses

That's what they're called, so that must be what they are.
  (+11, -2)(+11, -2)
(+11, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

There's a philosophy pandemic and nobody is doing anything about it - it's getting out of hand. On the other hand, it never seems to end. Make it stop. There's too much philosophy out there and I'm tired, I don't want to see things in a different light any more, I just want my normal single dimensional world of familiar word sequences that come after other plausible word sequences, back where I knew where I was.
Ian Tindale, Nov 15 2009

you are So right about this being *on the other hand*...+ http://sunwalked.fi...crates-knuckles.jpg
[xandram, Nov 16 2009]

And of course, next to them on the shelf... Introspectacles
[theircompetitor, Nov 17 2009]

Bills "Is" http://www.youtube....watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
[outloud, Nov 17 2009]

Rafflesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafflesia
Not specially sweet-smelling, unless you're a bluebottle. [8th of 7, Nov 19 2009]

Our Robot Future — The possibility horizon https://youtu.be/PXvH_kgz76w
what I recorded today [Ian Tindale, Jun 22 2015]

[link]






       We will bun this idea if you can prove to our satisfaction that you are not a figment of our (or someone else's) imagination.
8th of 7, Nov 15 2009
  

       Are they also peril-sensitive?   

       violet cubed + sqrt(indigo) + three(blue) + (green(decimal) - green(nonary)[two(yellow + orange) / orange + yellow) - (yellow + orange)] + (yellow + orange) + (red-nul l- red-null) = v.mucky pig = black.   

       violet cubed + sqrt(indigo) + three(blue) - (green(decimal) - green(nonary))[two(yellow + orange) / orange + yellow - (yellow + orange) squared. ] + (yellow + orange) - (red-null - red-null) = white light = white. Therefore, black = white
nineteenthly, Nov 15 2009
  

       Rose-colored lenses sold separately.
tatterdemalion, Nov 15 2009
  

       I hear a slightly tainted lens is a much healthier way to view.
dentworth, Nov 15 2009
  

       Only to the extent that a man has emancipated himself, in this way, from all other generic eyewear, does he count as a free spirit within a human community. No man is all genus, none is all individuality, his too-hip ray bans notwithstanding.   

       I meet your Anti-Philosophy with more of the same. Don't waste your time. Nihilism is the only out.
outloud, Nov 15 2009
  

       //a figment of our (or someone else's) imagination// Your illusory imagination does not exist.
pocmloc, Nov 15 2009
  

       You'll need a cane too, white I think.
WcW, Nov 15 2009
  

       Beer also works.
wagster, Nov 15 2009
  

       // Nihilism is the only out //   

       Nihilism is evil and must be destroyed.
8th of 7, Nov 15 2009
  

       Yes they need to be peril sensitive or [nineteenthly] will get himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
zeno, Nov 15 2009
  

       Someone else had a freeze-frame video recorder back in 'eighty-one, i see.
nineteenthly, Nov 15 2009
  

       //
violet cubed + sqrt(indigo) + three(blue) + (green(decimal) - green(nonary)[two(yellow + orange) / orange + yellow) - (yellow + orange)] + (yellow + orange) + (red-nul l- red-null) = v.mucky pig = black.
  

       violet cubed + sqrt(indigo) + three(blue) - (green(decimal) - green(nonary))[two(yellow + orange) / orange + yellow - (yellow + orange) squared. ] + (yellow + orange) - (red-null - red-null) = white light = white. Therefore, black = white//   

       Actually not. If you solve your equation more carefully, you will find that black is a function of white *and* a vulgar fraction involving a space *and* sqrt(yellow + orange).
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2009
  

       Believe it or not, i'm going to answer that, [MB].   

       I'm going to assume the following values for the colours:   

       Red - DCC nm.
Orange - DC nm.
Yellow - DLXX nm.
Green - DL nm.
Blue - CDL nm.
Indigo - CDXX nm (bearing in mind an earlier discussion).
Violet - CD nm.
  

       So, that makes it:   

       CD^III + sqrt(CDXX) + III(CDL) + (DL(decimal) - DL(nonary)[II(DLXX + DC) / DC + DLXX) - (DLXX + DC)] + (DLXX + DC) + (DCC-nul l- DCC-null) = v.mucky pig = black.   

       CD^III + sqrt(CDXX) + three(CDL) - (DL(decimal) - DL(nonary))[II(DLXX + DC) / DC + DLXX - (DLXX + DC) squared. ] + (DLXX + DC) - (DCC- null - DCC-null) = white light = white. Therefore, black = white   

       Simplifying that, both of them basically mean that the wavelength of the radiation concerned is way off the scale in the radio spectrum somewhere, which to my mind is both black and white. If you were in a room and the only electromagnetic radiation available was of the wavelength concerned, it would seem to be completely dark, i.e. black. On the other hand, it is electromagnetic radiation which is not of a frequency which corresponds to any particular colours, but it is light. In my book, light which doesn't correspond to any particular colours is white.   

       Therefore, black is white.
nineteenthly, Nov 15 2009
  

       All colours are just words.
xenzag, Nov 15 2009
  

       Yes, especially bleen and grue.
nineteenthly, Nov 15 2009
  

       // In my book, light which doesn't correspond to any particular colours is white.//   

       Well, in mine, light which doesn't correspond to any particular colours is Swiss. What of it?
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2009
  

       In my dictionary, "Swiss" is a word which means black and also means white, so clearly we agree.
nineteenthly, Nov 15 2009
  

       Not since 3000.
Ian Tindale, Nov 15 2009
  

       Describe the colour magenta.
xenzag, Nov 15 2009
  

       Pinky purple. Next?
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2009
  

       All that blue is is one more colour.
tatterdemalion, Nov 15 2009
  

       I would like to return to the authors use of the semantic construct "sunglasses". Since his project seems to center on the inescapability of externalized input and the effort to control global forces ("the sun") which are constructed into a false inevitability or invariability, I propose that the author has simply constructed an elaborate false paradox. Post represents a simple white flag of complete resignation to the forces of external manipulation that he feels powerless against.
WcW, Nov 16 2009
  

       hmmm, since black absorbs all light it is brightest of all the colors, we just percieve it in the negative. White rejects almost the full spectrum of light and so is actually dark we just can't see things as they truly are.   

       black = white   

       // // Nihilism is the only out //   

       Nihilism is evil and must be destroyed.//   

       It's OK. Nobody believes in Nihilism. Especially not Nihilists.
ye_river_xiv, Nov 16 2009
  

       //Pinky purple. Next?// Describing one colour by using the names of others confirms that all colours are words.
xenzag, Nov 16 2009
  

       There aren't any absolute words.
Ian Tindale, Nov 16 2009
  

       ...apart from the word "word" - all other words are pointers to other concepts, "word" is a pointer to itself.
hippo, Nov 16 2009
  

       Yes, I am wearing my new sunglasses now, and looking at this page, it's almost as though you are all talking complete bollocks - it's amazing!
zen_tom, Nov 16 2009
  

       Well i do try, [zen_tom].   

       There are lots of words which point to themselves, such as "pentasyllable", "English" and "heterological". Er...
nineteenthly, Nov 16 2009
  

       They can point to what they like, they don't represent anything absolute. All they do is establish distance between other word/representations. They're a difference tool. It tells us how much space goes inbetween the branches of the hierarchy of the ontology tree, and in which direction these flowers are arranged with respect to each other.
Ian Tindale, Nov 16 2009
  

       And anyway, surely all you've done is shove the colours around the colour wheel a bit, which is itself an artificial abstraction that is scientifically wrong but useful, if you're a human. If you're an insect, you're probably wondering why that wrong wheel cuts out the ultraviolet part of the visible spectrum. To us, it's the true wheel.
Ian Tindale, Nov 16 2009
  

       But just because it's true, does it follow that it's beautiful ?
8th of 7, Nov 16 2009
  

       Then again, most HB'ers seem to have fairly fixed opinions .....
8th of 7, Nov 16 2009
  

       //They're a difference tool.// I find myself agreeing with something [Ian Tindale] said. I'd better go and lie down.
pertinax, Nov 16 2009
  

       On in some cases, just installing some random neurons in the empty space marked "Brain goes here. Do not dismantle. No user-serviceable parts inside. Refer to qualified personnel."
8th of 7, Nov 16 2009
  

       From the Cambridge on-line dictionary:-

pandemic adjective
/pæn.dem.ik/ adj specialized (of a disease)
"existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people, animals or plants."

We seem to be lucky here. This philosophy pandemic doesn't appear to have reached my area. Or it could just be that the small but frequent doses of philosophy that we subject ourselves to (normally just before kicking out time) have allowed us to build up a resistance to major philosophy outbreaks. I recommend staying out later and drinking more beer.
DrBob, Nov 16 2009
  

       As an easily-implementable and cost-effective strategy for mass prophylaxis, that has much to recommend it.
8th of 7, Nov 16 2009
  

       I hear Socrates' last drink was was a doozy.   

       Would these glasses protect you from logic as well?
MikeD, Nov 16 2009
  

       Yes.   

       <points through doorway marked "Ladies styles">
8th of 7, Nov 16 2009
  

       Well at least we all agree that everyone else is always wrong about everything.
nineteenthly, Nov 16 2009
  

       black <> white or else there would only be the one word.
wjt, Nov 16 2009
  

       What, like Morning Star, Evening Star and Venus? Like the Scarlet Pimpernel?   

       The same tone can look black or white depending on its surroundings.
nineteenthly, Nov 16 2009
  

       So words are not one dimensional. Black and white are more than just tones.
wjt, Nov 17 2009
  

       Say more swears.
rcarty, Nov 17 2009
  

       So, is this is two-handed philosophy different to the usual one-handed stuff?
Dub, Nov 17 2009
  

       the assertion of black=white is obviously false. Black is absolute, the complete lack of color, a state rather than a property. White is relative, contextual. They cannot be equivalent mathematically, semantically, or metaphorically. It is to compare apples with an undefined space containing no fruit.
WcW, Nov 17 2009
  

       Black is absolute... how do we see black then? There are in fact many shades of black and no such thing as "absolute" black.   

       I'm still waiting for someone to describe what they mean by "colour". I think colour is a particular case that is very difficult to describe.
xenzag, Nov 17 2009
  

       <80's philosophy joke>If Milli Vanilli fall down in a forest does someone else make a sound?</80's philosophy joke>
hippo, Nov 17 2009
  

       [Hippo], you amuse me to the extent that i am strongly tempted to type the twelfth letter of the alphabet twice, separated by the fifteenth.   

       I probably shouldn't get into this, particularly on here, but the subjective/objective thing, so far as the "stream" which went through existentialism and phenomenology is concerned, was passe even in the early industrial revolution. Kant was criticised for imagining that the thing in itself could be apprehended as to its very existence, since that would count as a relation between the subject and the object, so there may not be a phenomenal-noumenal distinction, and if there isn't one of them, there are problems with being able to step outside oneself even to the extent of seeing what's on the other side of the sunglasses. The thing is, according to Kant we can't take the sunglasses off because they're our eyes, and we can't even tell the difference between the tint and the colour of the sunlight. We're all Chrome (as in William Gibson, not this 'ere browser).   

       [WcW], the way we perceive colours is by contrast with what's around them. I was probably failing to be humorous about the matter earlier, but what i meant was this. Black is the absence of reflection or light in physical terms, but that doesn't correspond to how we see things, and to say "in physical terms" presumes that we can take the shades off. This is a bit analogical, but in fact black as in the absence of visible light is not necessarily black because it might be very bright in the infrared or ultraviolet, and it would actually always be giving off some infrared radiation, wouldn't it? So, we partition things off at the point where our retinae stop responding to the frequencies for a start. That's a physiological limitation. Another one would be coming in out of the sun into a darkened house. Everything looks black but after your eyes adjust it will probably turn out not to be. So, when you say something is black, you are generally talking about your perception of it, not the absence of light, and it's arbitrary to choose one physiological limitation and not another.   

       Except that it isn't. The concepts of black and white fit into a structure. In the inverted spectra argument (someone who sees black and white the other way round), the significance of their response is important. For them, black leaves an afterimage and white doesn't, for example. Black makes their pupils constrict, makes them squint, and is associated with virginity rather than death in the west, whereas white is what you wear to a funeral in the west. There's a network, and it's in the person's nervous system, but also, as social animals, it's "out there".
nineteenthly, Nov 17 2009
  

       [insert brief one-liner answer giving impression that I had an off-the-cuff response ready within 5 secs of comprehension]
Ian Tindale, Nov 17 2009
  

       [witty reply to Ian's off-the-cuff response]
hippo, Nov 17 2009
  

       [not so witty attempt at joining in]
zen_tom, Nov 17 2009
  

       [Surreal non-sequitur involving custard]
8th of 7, Nov 17 2009
  

       What does "off-the-cuff" mean anyway, in the grand scheme of things??? I mean does anyone *really* know?
blissmiss, Nov 17 2009
  

       The etymology of the phrase is not totally certian, but is thought to arise from speakers at debates, dinners and other functions who would arrive without notes or with only a basic outline of their proposed speech, and then during the meal make notes on their shirt cuff, often based on contemporaneous events or conversations.   

       When asked to speak, they might use pre-written notes if they had them, but would also refer to the notes on their shirt cuff to add freshness and originality to their speech; they would be said to be "speaking off the cuff".
8th of 7, Nov 17 2009
  

       I so wish i knew that that was true.   

       [Ian], if you were to read your idea with these sunglasses, would you still be able to understand it?
nineteenthly, Nov 17 2009
  

       I meant that in a more philosophical way, 8th. Not the real origin, you silly.
blissmiss, Nov 17 2009
  

       nineteenthly, - yes, I would think so. Or to put it another way, I'd think so. But then I'd be back at the single dimension reality where word sequences of best fit simply fall out of my mouth into variously shaped holes in the discourse that precede and surround me, while all I do is sit and watch it happen pretending I'm something to do with any of it.
Ian Tindale, Nov 17 2009
  

       I think people get sidelined into arguments about words and language sometimes and it leads to them neglecting other philosophical issues. So, in a way, if you were to go back to that linguistic single dimensionality, you might discover a whole new Philosophy. This is sort of what Heidegger and Wittgenstein were both trying to do in different ways. Heidegger is about living in a world you care about, Wittgenstein about talking about things clearly and not mentioning anything else to avoid getting bogged down in bollocks.
nineteenthly, Nov 17 2009
  

       I'll have a Heidegger then, thanks. I've just recently dipped a toe into trying to understand virtue airfix, and although from a distance of some months ago when I would disbelieve any credibility it might proffer, and now I sort of see a tunnel at the end of the whole, it's nevertheless all too much of a distraction while I'm instead supposed to be making more progress regarding writing about resonance within information.
Ian Tindale, Nov 17 2009
  

       Actually, I was going to clarify that. Information itself passes through conduits, the conduit can exhibit resonant characteristics, the consumer and the transmitter of information can also act in accordance (or discordance) with the systemic resonance of the conduit, giving rise to characteristic noise/distortion/deletion of said information, reinforced by the users, the system design, the increasingly high-Q information type fed in and sucked out, etc. But I thought I'd leave it like that, even though upon rereading it I was as uncomforted by it as you apparently also were.
Ian Tindale, Nov 17 2009
  

       19th I find your use of language imprecise. Although you are building sentences that are structurally sound, no concise argument become apparent.   

       Black is the absence of reflection or light in physical terms, but that doesn't correspond to how we see things   

       (actually it does),   

       and to say "in physical terms" presumes that we can take the shades off   

       (we needn't, for black it cannot be made less so with fitering) .   

       This is a bit analogical   

       (more than a bit),   

       but in fact black as in the absence of visible light is not necessarily black because it might be very bright in the infrared or ultraviolet   

       (so? If you could see those colors then it wouldn't be black would it.)   

       and it would actually always be giving off some infrared radiation, wouldn't it   

       (to that extent not truely black, right?)   

       So, we partition things off at the point where our retinae stop responding to the frequencies for a start.   

       (Yes. If I cannot hear radio waves they are not sound. If you want to take a chainsaw to semantics then we are going to bog down)   

       That's a physiological limitation.   

       (Damn)   

       Another one would be coming in out of the sun into a darkened house. Everything looks black but after your eyes adjust it will probably turn out not to be. So, when you say something is black, you are generally talking about your perception of it,   

       (yes, and if later I detect something else, what of it)   

       not the absence of light, and it's arbitrary to choose one physiological limitation and not another.   

       (this is where your argument falls to pieces, because with black we can simply say, "I could not find anything in the box, it is empty" and if it was pointed out that we missed something in our search we do not say "nope it is still empty because I didn't see that the first time" we say "oh it is empty (black) save for that glass bead (some unseen radiation)" black is still the identity case for the empty box, the property it will absolutely have when empty, all other properties are transient.)
WcW, Nov 17 2009
  

       ...and the definition of colour is??? I'm still waiting.
xenzag, Nov 17 2009
  

       //black is still the identity case for the empty box, the property it will absolutely have when empty//

Except that it will have no fixed state unless you introduce an observer into the scenario.
DrBob, Nov 17 2009
  

       ... or a cat.   

       #include <EOSSACR.H>
8th of 7, Nov 17 2009
  

       [WcW], part of the problem is that strictly interpreted words tend not to refer to anything real. If black were to be defined as including the absence of electromagnetic radiation, nothing is black. Wittgenstein's early approach to that was to say it was a misunderstanding of how language works, and that meanings are vaguer than a dictionary-style definition on the whole. I tend to think the opposite: meanings can be precise, but that precision reduces their usefulness.   

       The real problem with me arguing that black is white is that it's disingenuous and my heart's not in it, because of course i don't really believe that black is white. This is more relevant than it might seem, because so far as i'm concerned it's important to take Philosophy seriously (hence the capital letter).   

       [Ian], one thing about Heidegger i find disturbing is that he never condemned the Nazis and was right in the middle of the German establishment during the Third Reich, and that didn't seem exactly concerned with care. Don't know what to do about this because for the life of me, if i read Heidegger his stuff seems incredibly right to me, and i would imagine my opinions differ considerably from those of the Nazis.
nineteenthly, Nov 17 2009
  

       // my opinions differ considerably from those of the Nazis //   

       We disagree. We assert that on a very wide range of basic opinions, such as "Rain makes you wet" and "Beer is nice" and "Toothache is bad" you would be in total agreement with 99.9% of Nazis.   

       It's more the "Gassing Jews and Gypsies is good and socially useful" area that there is an element of divergence.
8th of 7, Nov 17 2009
  

       Doesn't that rather depend on who's got the toothache, which beer you are drinking and whether or not you have an umbrella, 8th?
DrBob, Nov 17 2009
  

       Whatever Is, Is Right
outloud, Nov 17 2009
  

       Depends what you mean by 'is'.
Ian Tindale, Nov 17 2009
  

       Ian wrote it first.   

       That's what they're called, so that must be what they are.   

       ... It is true and therefore right.   

       "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."   

       Link
outloud, Nov 17 2009
  

       Tautology. "An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
xenzag, Nov 17 2009
  

       Be that as it may, it still makes it right.
outloud, Nov 17 2009
  

       In an infinite multiple universe it only makes it a possibility.   

       Marketability?   

       Check out my "Ray-Bans"! (still cool)   

       Check out my "Oakleys"! (Ok. Not too shabby)   

       My "Louis Vuittons"? (a little snotty, but you've still got her attention)   

       Am I hot, or not, in Tindale's "Magrittes"? What'ya think? (WTF?)
outloud, Nov 18 2009
  

       In an infinite multiple universe it only makes it a possibility. — 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 17 2009   

         

       An infinite multiple universe, being a possibility, therefore not a fact,isn't to be considered.
outloud, Nov 18 2009
  

       Is that right?   

       Are you sure these glasses are to spec? They seem a bit philosophy inducing.
wjt, Nov 18 2009
  

       I think they filter out one kind of Philosophy and let the other kind in. There could be two tints, one of which filters out sophistry, the other of which filters out huge, life-changing thoughts. So the first one would stop you from seeing arguments about whether black is white and the other would stop you thinking about existentialism.   

       My opinion differs from Nazis' in the same way as my children have half my genes. If they literally had half my genes, they'd be petunias or something, but of the variation possible within my and [grayure]'s genome, they have somewhere near half of them. Come to think of it, they also have [grayure]'s mitochondrial DNA.
nineteenthly, Nov 18 2009
  

       // who's got the toothache, which beer you are drinking and whether or not you have an umbrella //   

       So your idea of a good time is standing in the rain, drinking bad beer to alleviate your raging toothache ? What a joy-filled life you must lead, [DrBob}.   

       // My opinion differs from Nazis' in the same way as my children have half my genes.//   

       So, you are merely very right wing, and your children are centre-right democrats ?   

       Can opinions be not merely passed on but actually inherited ?
8th of 7, Nov 18 2009
  

       Is that right? — 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 17 2009   

         

       ........... That is right, if it is.
outloud, Nov 18 2009
  

       No, my children have "half" my genes, but really they have almost all my genes because many of them are held in common. A banana has slightly over half my genes, and in a similar way a Nazi has lots of the same memes as i. In another sense, Nazis have mainly different memes.   

       Opinions can be inherited in a sense, because for example, the opinion that some mustardy-yellow hue nobody else can distinguish from a rather similar mustardy-yellow hue is a nice colour could be passed down from one tetrachromat to another, but not from a tetrachromat to a trichromat. If there were really a gay gene, opinions regarding the same sex's attractiveness could be passed down. The conditions for the opinions to flourish might be laid down by heredity but perhaps not the specific opinions.
nineteenthly, Nov 18 2009
  

       // A banana has slightly over half my genes //   

       One of your offspring is a banana ? That's.... odd.   

       // If there were really a gay gene, opinions regarding the same sex's attractiveness could be passed down. //   

       How - parthenogenesis ?
8th of 7, Nov 18 2009
  

       Many of us end up with the wrong people. In some cases, the people are so wrong they're not even the same gender as intended. That's how a gay gene would be propagated. It could also be recessive.
nineteenthly, Nov 18 2009
  

       // It could also be recessive// pertaining to recesses?
pocmloc, Nov 18 2009
  

       The word "dominant" has similar punly qualities.
nineteenthly, Nov 18 2009
  

       //A rose by any other name would smell so sweet//   

       unless, of course, you call it a shitflower.
neo_, Nov 18 2009
  

       Or a Rafflesia.   

       <link>
8th of 7, Nov 19 2009
  

       What is it about certain patterns of sensory information that is so strongly associated with a value on a scale of compulsion or revulsion? There are smells, but some are compelling and sort of nice in that you like to be near it or go towards it, others are repulsive and you want to be away from it. The smell itself doesn't have a name or a label, or at least not directly - it might have one loosely attached in a societal sense of convention but that's quite indirect. But it does have an identity. And it's this identity that universally calls up a 'go towards it / go away from it' response. However, the smell itself in each case is simply information - data - a sensory pattern.
Ian Tindale, Nov 19 2009
  

       I feel it important to point out that I have nothing to point out at this moment in time.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 22 2015
  

       If you had a pet rat (and I do like rats a lot, so I could have one as a pet), anyway I digress... If you had a pet rat and its name was failure, but it gave off an odor when it was upset, you could subvert the usual smell of success, though still smelling a rat.... Oh bugger I've lost my train of thought here, but posting anyway. It's an anti-sentiment. An antithesis even. It's a brown rat by the way, whatever that means, but not green. A Green rat is horizonic.
xenzag, Jun 22 2015
  

       Was that philosophy?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 23 2015
  

       Our protagonist, desperate in his desire to be blind, nevertheless sees the truth. His own mind holds him captive, bound to the limitations of flesh. Existence gropes you, and you can do no better than grope back, blind deaf, insensate, it is only groping, a thing limited by the crippling inferiority of the resolution and accuracy of the device of measurement, a device bent mostly to self replication.
WcW, Jun 23 2015
  

       Now _that's_ what I call philosophy. It's still bollocks, but it's definitely philosophy.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 23 2015
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle