I don't think you would naturally have Omnipotence, but would have the infinite knowledge on how to attain it (and therefore would have it).
I could see that being the case, but I could also see it not being the case. The issue comes down to whether or not you think that there are some things that really are impossible.
I think there are things impossible even for an omniscient human.
I don't think you would naturally have Omnipotence, but would have the infinite knowledge on how to attain it (and therefore would have it).
I could see that being the case, but I could also see it not being the case. The issue comes down to whether or not you think that there are some things that really are impossible.
I think there are things impossible even for an omniscient human.
I do not think anything is impossible for somebody who is omniscient, barring paradoxes.
The problem is, it is much harder to imagine and perceive omniscience because it is such an abstract concept. Whereas omnipotence is easier to grasp.
Not just Paradoxes, the laws of physics would limit the omniscience. There are things that must be impossible for a human to do even if they knew everything.
For example, take a brain in a jar that can't move. Even if that brain knows everything that could be known it would still be unable to be anything other than a brain in a jar. There are physical limits to what something can do, and knowing those limits would not help them overcome them. The same is likely true for a human on Earth.
But what does infinite knowledge give you? Is it just knowledge or do you suddenly have an understanding of more. Would physical laws that myself or you are bound to still apply? What happens when you can perceive the unperceivable?
With omnipotence, there's no new heights to be achieved, and with omniscience, there's nothing new to experience. Both would inevitably lead to boredom, then suicide.
I will just say if something was impossible and you knew everything, you would just know it was impossible. You've already agreed there are SOME limitations:
I do not think anything is impossible for somebody who is omniscient, barring paradoxes.
Knowing everything that can be known (I want to stress that as well) would let you know everything you couldn't do, as well as everything you could.
It might be simply impossible to Time Travel, for example. Or it might take items you'd not be able to build given your resources on Earth. Even if you knew where they were you might simply be a brain in a jar when it came to getting them.
If an ant become aware of everything a nanosecond before a shoe crushed him, he would still not be able to get out of the way in time. It could be just like that for our all-knowing human, only slower.
I'd be for omniscience - I stand by the logic that if you're omniscient, if there's a way to become omnipotent, you would know it. If you're omnipotent, you'd likely wind up destroying yourself. Sure, you'll have physical limitations - which is why you use your omniscience to create a way for yourself to remove those!
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Knowing a way to become omnipotent doesn't imply that you can act on that knowledge. Imagine you're just a brain in a jar, unconnected to any form of actuator or tool. You can't do anything, so a fortiori you can't do whatever is necessary to become omnipotent. Now, obviously, as an intact person you can do some things. But it still may be that you can't do the necessary things. We all know lots of stuff that we can't act on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How do you define omnipotence? Does it come with the knowledge require to use the power?
To illustrate with an example, I'm what would be considered a normal, well-bodied, average human being. That means I technically have the "power" to do all sorts of things that I can't do due to a lack of knowledge - play a musical instrument, do a tap-dance, participate in vairous soprts, etc... I have all the "powers" needed to do these things, but not the knowledge. Maybe we're already omniponent, we just don't know how to use it?
If you assume that being omnipotent includes the skill of using the power (just perhaps nto the wisdom to use it correctly), and you assume that this is a meaningful choice (ie omniscience is possible, and therefore could have been chosen, than omnipotence is the strictly correct choice, as you would be able to grant yourself omniscience. The brain in the jar argument clearly illustrates that the reverse is not inheriantly true (though perhaps it is possible that an omnicient brain would know some way to utilize brain energy to manipulate the environment and ultimate obtain omnipotence, it does not logically follow for certain that this would be the case, whereas if you grant that omniscience is possible, than it logically follows that an omnipotent person can become omnicient).
That said, I agree with Kryptnyt - both would lead to an inert, entropic, and ultimately meaningless existance and likely suicide. With no mystery or challenge left, what is there to live for?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I think omniscience is getting a bad rap by people that are judging omniscience by their own abilities.
An omniscient brain in a jar knows how existence is made, what it is made of, how it is held together, and how to manipulate all parts of existence in the optimal way. A brain in a jar does exist and and it does interact with existence and that interaction is godlike.
You do not know that this brain could not do a lot of things that you would never be able to think of because you are not omniscient.
An omniscient brain in a jar knows how existence is made, what it is made of, how it is held together, and how to manipulate all parts of existence in the optimal way. A brain in a jar does exist and and it does interact with existence and that interaction is godlike.
No, it doesn't interact with existence. "Brain in a jar" is philosophical shorthand for "mind that doesn't interact with anything". You are attempting to assert your desired conclusion not only in the absence of argument, but in contradiction of the terms of the thought experiment.
You do not know that this brain could not do a lot of things that you would never be able to think of because you are not omniscient.
"I don't know what it can do, therefore it can do anything" is a fallacious argument. There is nothing in the definition of omniscience that gives its bearer any physical capabilities they do not already have. Clearly I don't know everything that an omniscient brain in a jar knows. But I do know what an omniscient brain in a jar can do: nothing, by definition. And it knows that too, of course. But that doesn't help it any. Omniscience means, among other things, knowing exactly what your limitations are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is not necessarily true that it is possible to live forever - it's possible that, for example, the heat death of the universe is inevitable, unless something supernatural and effectively omnipotent intervenes. Omniscience would allow you to live a really damn long time (better get cracking on implementing those medical programs that will grant you immortality, but that should be doable by an omniscient human before they die), but if that's the case, it would not allow you to live forever.
It is not necessarily true that it is possible to acquire supernatural powers (after this particular acquisition - I'll get to that in a minute). If there is a way, omniscience would show you that way. But if there isn't a way, omniscience doesn't help. It's not necessarily the case that it's possible to acquire supernatural powers. If that's the case, there's no way to become omnipotent.
Omniscience lets you know everything there is to know about everything. It doesn't let you know about things that aren't there to be known. If the heat death of the universe can't be prevented without supernatural power, and supernatural power can't be acquired, you will eventually die, and at some future point, the universe will eventually end.
* We know that it is possible to acquire supernatural power in this thought example because you acquired it once. As a practical matter, depending how you acquired it, this can be a pretty big consideration - if it was a sentient being, that means you'll acquire knowledge of its desires, and how to manipulate it, for example. It does not necessarily follow that it's physically possible to gain a second supernatural power - for example, it could be offered by a machine possessing supernatural powers of which only one exists, which self-destructs on executing its program to give you a power, and where only creatures which are already effectively omnipotent can create another (as a supernatural machine, you must have supernatural powers to make one).
As a practical matter, if you've been offered supernatural powers once, acquiring supernatural powers a second time is probably feasible, but you have no guarantee that it's feasible. On the other hand, by definition, if you acquire omnipotence, you can just give yourself omniscience.
"I don't know what it can do, therefore it can do anything" is a fallacious argument. There is nothing in the definition of omniscience that gives its bearer any physical capabilities they do not already have. Clearly I don't know everything that an omniscient brain in a jar knows. But I do know what an omniscient brain in a jar can do: nothing, by definition. And it knows that too, of course. But that doesn't help it any. Omniscience means, among other things, knowing exactly what your limitations are.
You're clearly right about this. But it's a bit of a straw man at the same time. We aren't brains in a vat. Omniscience really would mean being able to manipulate matter at the most fundamental ways that can be physically achieved. It's fully possible that, given omniscience, there is nothing that you could ever want to do that you wouldn't be able to do - that you could guarantee the existence of the universe forever, live forever, have anything you want, give anything you want to anyone, go anywhere, etc. It's possible that omniscience would mean effective omnipotence. It's even possible that omniscience would give actual omnipotence - that there's some supernatural ritual that would give you exactly the powers that being 'omnipotent' would give you.
The thing is, it's not guaranteed. It's possible that there are inevitabilities to the universe. It's possible that e.g. the heat death of the universe can't be prevented. It's possible that traveling past the speed of light can't be achieved in any way whatsoever. It's possible that interacting with matter at the most fundamental levels is impossible, because even if you know everything, there's no such thing as a machine that can interact with them (i.e. that the most fundamental manipulations which can be achieved are still very crude).
So you're right, but using the philosophical brain in a vat is actually kind of confusing, because it's sharply disanalogous to us (it can't influence the world at all, we can influence the world quite a bit - there are lots of possible worlds where omniscience wouldn't let a brain in a vat do anything while omniscience would allow a human to give herself omnipotence as well).
No, it doesn't interact with existence. "Brain in a jar" is philosophical shorthand for "mind that doesn't interact with anything".
I did not know that was philosophical short hand. My previous post assumed a slightly different brain in a jar.
The brain is made of something, what it is made up of has physical properties and that those properties can be interacted with. This really does seem like a more realistic brain in the jar scenario. The brain is real and it does have properties.
You are attempting to assert your desired conclusion not only in the absence of argument, but in contradiction of the terms of the thought experiment.
I was attempting to use my personal logical abilities on a problem that consisted of an existent brain and what the word omniscience meant.
You do not know that this brain could not do a lot of things that you would "I don't know what it can do, therefore it can do anything" is a fallacious argument.
I agree that this is fallacious.
What i was trying to say is it is fallacious to believe that "I do not know what an existent brain in a jar could do; so it cannot solve any given problem" is fallacious. Again i thought the brain actually existed of something.
There is nothing in the definition of omniscience that gives its bearer any physical capabilities they do not already have.
I did not know that this brain had no physical properties.
Clearly I don't know everything that an omniscient brain in a jar knows.
This was the best form of my first argument. We do not know what the limitations of an existent brain in a jar is.
But I do know what an omniscient brain in a jar can do: nothing, by definition.
And because of this i will retract my entire argument.
Omniscience means, among other things, knowing exactly what your limitations are.
I did not know that the limitations presented in the hypothetical where infinite in measure.
What i was trying to say is it is fallacious to believe that "I do not know what an extant brain in a jar could do; so it cannot solve any given problem" is fallacious. Again i thought the brain actually existed of something.
My point was to illustrate through extreme example that omniscience does not inherently allow you to overcome incapability. I'm not trying to say that an omniscient brain in a jar can't solve a particular given problem, or that an omniscient human can't solve a particular given problem. I'm trying to say that, even though an entity is omniscient, it remains possible that there will be some problem(s) it cannot solve: you can construct a logically consistent scenario in which an omniscient being cannot do something that an omnipotent being could. Which means that omniscience does not imply omnipotence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If you'd like to attain a concrete, mathematical understanding of this dichotomy you should study Control Theory which is a subject of electrical and mechanical engineering. A fundamental principle of control theory is that in order to fully control a system you need both ability of observation and ability of actuation. If you can't observe your system in enough points you won't be able to adjust the signals to your desired state because you won't know enough about the initial signals you're working from. If you don't have enough actuators you can't manipulate the signals enough.
What i was trying to say is it is fallacious to believe that "I do not know what an extant brain in a jar could do; so it cannot solve any given problem" is fallacious. Again i thought the brain actually existed of something.
My point was to illustrate through extreme example that omniscience does not inherently allow you to overcome incapability. I'm not trying to say that an omniscient brain in a jar can't solve a particular given problem, or that an omniscient human can't solve a particular given problem. I'm trying to say that, even though an entity is omniscient, it remains possible that there will be some problem(s) it cannot solve: you can construct a logically consistent scenario in which an omniscient being cannot do something that an omnipotent being could. Which means that omniscience does not imply omnipotence.
I would have to play devil's advocate here just because it's fun.
The main statement I disagree with is the idea that you can "construct logically consistent scensarios in which an omniscient being cannot do something and omnipotent being could."
I disagree with this because even though we hold ideas of omniscience and omnipotence and withold ideas of how beings would be with said qualities, we still can not provide a non-inductive approach to this particular conclusion.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is that we can not "logically" let alone "soundly" construct these scenarios. For they would simply be witheld by the premise and the premise alone explaining that supposed omnipotent beings could do things omniscient beings can not as opposed to a valid/sound rationale explaining said scenario. In other words, since we are too limited in our perception and knowledge, we can not reasonably comprehend what these beings are capable of because we can not reasonably comprehend the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence themselves.
When you're argument is looked at using the tools of aristotelian reasoning, you're statements regarding the dichotomous nature of omniscience and omnipotence translate into this
"I say that you can reasonably construct scenarios in which an omnipotent being can do things and omniscient being can not, therefore and omniscient being is not on 'equal' footing wth an omnipotent being.
I'm not trying to debase this discussion completely by falling back on the notion of pondering such things are meaningless. Instead, I would propose the possibility (through being aware of my lack of a valid premise) that even though incapacitated to extremes such as being nothing but a conscious brain in a jar, that there is still enough knowledge one could attain to be able to relieve oneself of said situation, even if we can not concieve of how it could be done ourselves, an omniscient being could.
Further on, we should instead be debating whether or not there are situations an omniscient being can not solve and why
Since they are both logically inconsistent, I don't think this belongs in debate. There's nothing to debate, it's like a vs thread where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
Though if I actually were to play this game, I'd take the stance that omniscience grants omnipotence. I'm not really going to bother to explain why because everyone here would probably think I was crazy. Suffice to say it has to do with infinite computational capacity and the anthropic principle.
Everyone seems to agree that omnipotence granting omniscience, though I think it may make the original question more interesting if you specify that omnipotence can only actually grant what is logically consistent. Either way, the transformation runs into the problem of specification; if you have a little black box of omnipotence, how does your little human brain actually specify what you want in the first place? Think about all the cautionary tales about wishes going wrong. I'd say that no matter how you slice it, one would need omniscience in order to utilize their omnipotence.
I'm pretty sure the bottom line is that an Omnipotent being would--by definition--necessarily be able to grant itself access to all knowledge that can be known.
However, it is onlyarguable that an Omniscient being might be able to do everything that can be done.
I believe the famous philosopher Dr. Doom put it best:
Honorary doctor or not, he knew what he was talking about
If you are Omniscient, couldn't you just learn how to obtain omnipotence?
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Wouldn't having one means you'll have the other?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
See this is the question I have. Lots of people I've talked to seem to think if you have Omniscience you WOULD be Omnipotent.
I disagree.
I don't think you would naturally have Omnipotence, but would have the infinite knowledge on how to attain it (and therefore would have it).
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
I think there are things impossible even for an omniscient human.
I do not think anything is impossible for somebody who is omniscient, barring paradoxes.
The problem is, it is much harder to imagine and perceive omniscience because it is such an abstract concept. Whereas omnipotence is easier to grasp.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
For example, take a brain in a jar that can't move. Even if that brain knows everything that could be known it would still be unable to be anything other than a brain in a jar. There are physical limits to what something can do, and knowing those limits would not help them overcome them. The same is likely true for a human on Earth.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Knowing everything that can be known (I want to stress that as well) would let you know everything you couldn't do, as well as everything you could.
It might be simply impossible to Time Travel, for example. Or it might take items you'd not be able to build given your resources on Earth. Even if you knew where they were you might simply be a brain in a jar when it came to getting them.
If an ant become aware of everything a nanosecond before a shoe crushed him, he would still not be able to get out of the way in time. It could be just like that for our all-knowing human, only slower.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To illustrate with an example, I'm what would be considered a normal, well-bodied, average human being. That means I technically have the "power" to do all sorts of things that I can't do due to a lack of knowledge - play a musical instrument, do a tap-dance, participate in vairous soprts, etc... I have all the "powers" needed to do these things, but not the knowledge. Maybe we're already omniponent, we just don't know how to use it?
If you assume that being omnipotent includes the skill of using the power (just perhaps nto the wisdom to use it correctly), and you assume that this is a meaningful choice (ie omniscience is possible, and therefore could have been chosen, than omnipotence is the strictly correct choice, as you would be able to grant yourself omniscience. The brain in the jar argument clearly illustrates that the reverse is not inheriantly true (though perhaps it is possible that an omnicient brain would know some way to utilize brain energy to manipulate the environment and ultimate obtain omnipotence, it does not logically follow for certain that this would be the case, whereas if you grant that omniscience is possible, than it logically follows that an omnipotent person can become omnicient).
That said, I agree with Kryptnyt - both would lead to an inert, entropic, and ultimately meaningless existance and likely suicide. With no mystery or challenge left, what is there to live for?
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
An omniscient brain in a jar knows how existence is made, what it is made of, how it is held together, and how to manipulate all parts of existence in the optimal way. A brain in a jar does exist and and it does interact with existence and that interaction is godlike.
You do not know that this brain could not do a lot of things that you would never be able to think of because you are not omniscient.
"I don't know what it can do, therefore it can do anything" is a fallacious argument. There is nothing in the definition of omniscience that gives its bearer any physical capabilities they do not already have. Clearly I don't know everything that an omniscient brain in a jar knows. But I do know what an omniscient brain in a jar can do: nothing, by definition. And it knows that too, of course. But that doesn't help it any. Omniscience means, among other things, knowing exactly what your limitations are.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is not necessarily true that it is possible to acquire supernatural powers (after this particular acquisition - I'll get to that in a minute). If there is a way, omniscience would show you that way. But if there isn't a way, omniscience doesn't help. It's not necessarily the case that it's possible to acquire supernatural powers. If that's the case, there's no way to become omnipotent.
Omniscience lets you know everything there is to know about everything. It doesn't let you know about things that aren't there to be known. If the heat death of the universe can't be prevented without supernatural power, and supernatural power can't be acquired, you will eventually die, and at some future point, the universe will eventually end.
* We know that it is possible to acquire supernatural power in this thought example because you acquired it once. As a practical matter, depending how you acquired it, this can be a pretty big consideration - if it was a sentient being, that means you'll acquire knowledge of its desires, and how to manipulate it, for example. It does not necessarily follow that it's physically possible to gain a second supernatural power - for example, it could be offered by a machine possessing supernatural powers of which only one exists, which self-destructs on executing its program to give you a power, and where only creatures which are already effectively omnipotent can create another (as a supernatural machine, you must have supernatural powers to make one).
As a practical matter, if you've been offered supernatural powers once, acquiring supernatural powers a second time is probably feasible, but you have no guarantee that it's feasible. On the other hand, by definition, if you acquire omnipotence, you can just give yourself omniscience.
You're clearly right about this. But it's a bit of a straw man at the same time. We aren't brains in a vat. Omniscience really would mean being able to manipulate matter at the most fundamental ways that can be physically achieved. It's fully possible that, given omniscience, there is nothing that you could ever want to do that you wouldn't be able to do - that you could guarantee the existence of the universe forever, live forever, have anything you want, give anything you want to anyone, go anywhere, etc. It's possible that omniscience would mean effective omnipotence. It's even possible that omniscience would give actual omnipotence - that there's some supernatural ritual that would give you exactly the powers that being 'omnipotent' would give you.
The thing is, it's not guaranteed. It's possible that there are inevitabilities to the universe. It's possible that e.g. the heat death of the universe can't be prevented. It's possible that traveling past the speed of light can't be achieved in any way whatsoever. It's possible that interacting with matter at the most fundamental levels is impossible, because even if you know everything, there's no such thing as a machine that can interact with them (i.e. that the most fundamental manipulations which can be achieved are still very crude).
So you're right, but using the philosophical brain in a vat is actually kind of confusing, because it's sharply disanalogous to us (it can't influence the world at all, we can influence the world quite a bit - there are lots of possible worlds where omniscience wouldn't let a brain in a vat do anything while omniscience would allow a human to give herself omnipotence as well).
I did not know that was philosophical short hand. My previous post assumed a slightly different brain in a jar.
The brain is made of something, what it is made up of has physical properties and that those properties can be interacted with. This really does seem like a more realistic brain in the jar scenario. The brain is real and it does have properties.
I was attempting to use my personal logical abilities on a problem that consisted of an existent brain and what the word omniscience meant.
I agree that this is fallacious.
What i was trying to say is it is fallacious to believe that "I do not know what an existent brain in a jar could do; so it cannot solve any given problem" is fallacious. Again i thought the brain actually existed of something.
I did not know that this brain had no physical properties.
This was the best form of my first argument. We do not know what the limitations of an existent brain in a jar is.
And because of this i will retract my entire argument.
I did not know that the limitations presented in the hypothetical where infinite in measure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I would have to play devil's advocate here just because it's fun.
The main statement I disagree with is the idea that you can "construct logically consistent scensarios in which an omniscient being cannot do something and omnipotent being could."
I disagree with this because even though we hold ideas of omniscience and omnipotence and withold ideas of how beings would be with said qualities, we still can not provide a non-inductive approach to this particular conclusion.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is that we can not "logically" let alone "soundly" construct these scenarios. For they would simply be witheld by the premise and the premise alone explaining that supposed omnipotent beings could do things omniscient beings can not as opposed to a valid/sound rationale explaining said scenario. In other words, since we are too limited in our perception and knowledge, we can not reasonably comprehend what these beings are capable of because we can not reasonably comprehend the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence themselves.
When you're argument is looked at using the tools of aristotelian reasoning, you're statements regarding the dichotomous nature of omniscience and omnipotence translate into this
"I say that you can reasonably construct scenarios in which an omnipotent being can do things and omniscient being can not, therefore and omniscient being is not on 'equal' footing wth an omnipotent being.
I'm not trying to debase this discussion completely by falling back on the notion of pondering such things are meaningless. Instead, I would propose the possibility (through being aware of my lack of a valid premise) that even though incapacitated to extremes such as being nothing but a conscious brain in a jar, that there is still enough knowledge one could attain to be able to relieve oneself of said situation, even if we can not concieve of how it could be done ourselves, an omniscient being could.
Further on, we should instead be debating whether or not there are situations an omniscient being can not solve and why
Though if I actually were to play this game, I'd take the stance that omniscience grants omnipotence. I'm not really going to bother to explain why because everyone here would probably think I was crazy. Suffice to say it has to do with infinite computational capacity and the anthropic principle.
Everyone seems to agree that omnipotence granting omniscience, though I think it may make the original question more interesting if you specify that omnipotence can only actually grant what is logically consistent. Either way, the transformation runs into the problem of specification; if you have a little black box of omnipotence, how does your little human brain actually specify what you want in the first place? Think about all the cautionary tales about wishes going wrong. I'd say that no matter how you slice it, one would need omniscience in order to utilize their omnipotence.
However, it is only arguable that an Omniscient being might be able to do everything that can be done.
I believe the famous philosopher Dr. Doom put it best:
Honorary doctor or not, he knew what he was talking about