Talk:Indeterminacy/@comment-29564364-20171007135629/@comment-29564364-20171220162558

«Wow I guess you had to rack your brain to come up with a response huh?» Mind you I have other things to do than sit behind my keyboard and argue with you all day. I was rather busy with unfortunate circumstances the last few months, so I completely forgot until I got notified of someone else commenting on this page.

«The problem is from the beginning I indulged your game of semantics. Example; at the end of your post you replaced a word I used with a word and phrase that can be synonymous with it.» Strength, greatness and power are not always synonymous, especially when talking about a fictional setting where superpowers are a thing.

«More semantics from you I see. No more. I’m going to let you hang yourself. From your own OP. “Knowledge is the body of information and skills acquired by a person while intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply said knowledge”. See when you get too technical to try to make a point about fictional extraordinary abilities you have lost already.» «Do you see the [hole] you dug for yourself. These words are all predicated on real life scenarios and instances. We are talking about someone or something who has all knowledge. Meaning they know everything about everything. Do you know how ridiculous you look trying to apply words and logic to something like this. You can’t, as I have just shown you your own reasoning falls apart.» I see... That only amounts to saying "Fiction, therefore your argument is invalid." which never makes for a strong argument. Actually, not only is it not a good argument, but it's not even an argument at all. You're merely asserting I'm wrong without providing any reason as to why that is. If you feel cornered, admitting defeat is a much better option than playing the childish "You're wrong because I said so." card.

«I realize the word that you are so hung up on in the intelligence definition is acquire.» Not at all. I'm hung up on the difference between "the body of facts, information and skills acquired by a person," a.k.a. knowledge, and "the ability to acquire knowledge and skills," a.k.a. intelligence, which you so dishonestly acknowledge multiple times, yet completely dismiss when making your arguments.

«You keep berating me about the fact that an Omniscient can’t acquire because they already know.» You have a serious lack of reasoning skills if you believe that you can know more than everything there is to know. That's as stupid as claiming that 1L of water can fit in a cup with a 500ml capacity.

«You even went as far as to make the stupid comment that acquiring things from birth is impossible. I don’t know who told you that lie but I am not even going there right now. I will say that we acquire many things from birth and leave it at that.» Your blatantly wrong paraphrasing of my words reeks intellectual dishonesty. I said: "Also, if the user was born with it, then they did not acquire it through their learning skills ." I never once mentioned impossibility in that statement.

«Notice the definition of knowledge, it also has that pesky word in it (acquire). So I ask you? How does an Omniscient acquire the body of information and skills that comprise their knowledge.» It depends from fiction to fiction and from character to character, but they are usually created/born with it or it's bestowed upon them by a higher being or object(s), but one thing's for sure is there were no learning skills involved.

«In your definition you say that knowledge is acquired and this is true. Acquire is used in most definitions of knowledge I have read. This is a problem for you because you say an Omniscient can not acquire so by your own logic they are not even possessors of all knowledge.» How could you possibly misinterpret that? I said that an omniscient being cannot acquire more knowledge because they already have it all and saying otherwise would be plain stupid. At this point, you're just grasping at straws, trying to build your straw man of my argument.

«Even in my scenario which you said was flawed you still miss the point. You say that since they know I am going to ask about a bomb and they know their response there is no reasoning involved. Then why did they choose to send it to the universe without people. Even if they knew that exchange was going to take place even if they had second by the second accountings of it there was still reasoning behind their answer. Even if they already knew the answer before I asked the question. How can you not see this? Reasoning is not just something that happens in the moments following a question I hope you at least understand this.» There would be no choice because knowing the present and future completely removes the possibility for free will unless you're talking about inherent Omniscience which would be out of topic because I said above that I am arguing about total Omniscience, not inherent Omniscience.

«If you are omniscient and all knowing then you are also extremely intelligent.» Since the beginning, you've only asserted that without ever demonstrating it, so any such mention will be dismissed until you actually demonstrate how knowledge equates to intelligence. Unfortunately, you would have to redefine one or both terms because they have different definitions. Also, here you're literally claiming a correlation between knowledge and intelligence, then you accuse me of acting like there is one a paragraph below?

«No matter what semantical games you try to play with those two words. Also I said I was going to stop indulging you so I would like to point out the differences between them are tenuous at best.» «Again, so you don’t berate me I know there is a distinction but it’s not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. You act like there is no correlation between the two, [...].» I never said anything about a correlation between knowledge and intelligence, but I'll pronounce myself on the subject here so that you won't put any more words in my mouth. I presume there would be one in reality, but fiction counts so many different settings, including some where one does not need intelligence to acquire knowledge (e.i. divine intervention, magic, psionics, supernatural artifacts, etc.) that I would have to go about it on a case by case basis. If anything, you are the one implying a correlation since you are using them interchangeably. And while we're there, why wouldn't you show me how little difference you claim there is between knowledge and intelligence by providing your definitions for both terms?

«People do use them interchangeably. You don’t want to accept that because it plays more into your narrative of smarter than omniscience.» That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because a large number of people hold a proposition true doesn't make it so. Again, that only means there are a lot of people like you who don't understand the difference between knowledge and intelligence.

«If someone has a lot of knowledga you would be right in also saying that person is intelligent.» Depends on how they got that knowledge. If they acquired it through experience and/or education, then yes, they are intelligent. But if they were born with it or some god gave it to them for whatever reason, then no, they aren't.