The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Share

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:53 am

    ... i meant to ask earlier, where is your partner in crime; lyssuh?
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Satyr on Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:57 am

    Zoot Allures wrote:... i meant to ask earlier, where is your partner in crime; lyssuh?
    We do not communicate any more.
    I showed too much. Too much of me is unbearable.
    Got caught up in the 'intimacy' ploy.
    She drops a line, once in a while....don't know more than that. You, probably, communicated with her more, in the past year, than I did.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:13 pm

    she sent a couple poems and a picture of nancy wilson (which pho reproduced with pencil) via phoneutria, while i was in prison... before being extradited to VA jail.

    that's it.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:37 am

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:I'm single and probably will remain so for awhile yet to come.

    I've always been very sensitive about women's past indiscretions. It's always bothered me deeply, that women can fuck a bunch of guys then want to land a "nice" guy to support them, after they've been used up. Virgin and sexless females are the bounty. Promiscuous and loose women are repulsive. Think of it this way, all the men women let between their legs, before you, are 'better' men than you are. This has always bothered my pride. How can men have pride being "last place"?

    How can you? Doesn't that make you a cuckold, to settle for second-best, or last-best? I think it does. But a lot of men are so fucking desperate and prideless, that you will accept last place than no place at all. I think, as a man, if you have pride in yourself, you would rather be no place at all than last.

    Am I right or wrong?

    all those concerns are conventions that reflect specific attitudes and value judgements that are contingent to a specific culture in a specific period in time.

    the only thing that matters is the reproduction of superior genes. doesn't matter how you do it. polygamy, monogamy, private family unit, state regulated marriage (nazi eugenic program), monarchic arranged marriage, whatever. those are means to an end. only the end matters; rearing healthy, genetically superior offspring.

    i could create a context in which all his concerns above would be superseded by the purpose of the polygamous circumstances he describes. you might have a superior female whom you want to reproduce with more than one superior male, and therefore you encourage multiple partners. in this context, the female is not seen as a whore, but an instrument.



    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:20 am

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:So yes, it is about worth, choice, and filtering. Young women naturally filter out the lesser males, reject them, sexually. If young men are rejected, then it feels painful, because it means they are low status and shut-out of the gene pool. In nature, this is symbolic of a death sentence. This is how some young males become desperate, nihilistic, hateful, resentful, and homicidal/suicidal. They know, intuitively, that there is no hope for them throughout life. They will always be marked as genetic-losers. Ousted from the gene pool.

    So they act out, in many ways. Criminals are formed this way too.

    ... but superior males can be rejected too. a minor caveat he failed to mention.

    the difference between a rejected, inferior male and a rejected, superior male is that only the former becomes depressed after rejection... experiencing all those things he mentions (pain, desperation, nihilism, hate, resent, etc.)

    the reason why the rejected, superior male doesn't feel these things is because a superior male can't feel these things; it isn't part of his lofty nature. the rejection is not his loss, but the loss of whoever has rejected him. a loss for the gene pool. a loss for the abstraction "humanity'.

    (but one must remember that a female's judgement isn't always an indication of superior, selective principles. you've got a rich, handsome, talentless idiot with the IQ of a house plant and a history of cancer in his family, who attracts all the women.)

    now of course every male that's rejected will attempt to rationalize his rejection so that he won't be found to blame for it. this is step one. but if he has to go looking for it, he's not superior. there is no rationalization needed; the superior male is immediately aware of his exceptionalism and doesn't have to 'find excuses'.

    step two is self loathing. now the inferior male, who subconsciously knows he's trying to rationalize his way out of being to blame for his rejection, finally submits to the hard fact that he is inferior. now the depression and all that other shit, begins.

    part of being a superior male is the acceptance that he may not be selected... and he accepts this knowing that what is important isn't about 'him', but the gene pool. he rejoices in the fact that there are superior males out there reproducing, and he keeps his optimism, loving the future of man through them, vicariously.


    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:51 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=193943&p=2697480#p2697480

    Are we able to understand reality without exactly thinking about, or labeling it in some way?

    this can't be answered until we know what he means by 'understand'.

    eidetic reduction requires language, see. the distinction between properties and essences cannot be made without the use of a language, because such categories don't exist outside of it. but a 'thing' certainly exists, and we are engaged with it even if we don't use a language. here, 'understanding' of the thing comes in the form of its use, its presence as either relevant or irrelevant to what we are doing with it and/or around it.

    an example. i'm a caveman that doesn't have a syntactical language. there is a tree that bears fruit over there, though i don't understand it as 'a tree that bears fruit over there', because i don't have any words. still i have knowledge of what it means, what it does, and what it doesn't do, in my world. i expect it to bear fruit that i can eat, and i don't expect it to attack, steal the badass shale carving tool i just made, or my homegirl.

    what it 'is' is irrelevant to my understanding; only how it's used, matters. i mean the question of its phenomenological nature is irrelevant.

    once i learn a language, then all the confusion sets in. omg wtf is it? if i take away all its properties, does it still exist? now a new understanding occurs; i begin confusing my knowledge of the language i use to 'think' about the tree with knowledge i had about its use, and i feel that the problems i've found that are generated in my language (unknowingly), reveal real problems about the tree's nature.

    problems between properties and essences are circular and have no terminus. you can't just arrive at a fundamental property and call it an essence, because you can't possibly know if it's fundamental. first they thought it was molecules, then atoms, then sub-atomic particles, then little vibrating strings... and now they're all saying it's just 'noise', but they can't get beyond the wave/particle dilemma.

    it's waves of particles. nuh-uh, is particles that are waves. dude, particles travel in waves... what the hell are you talking about? yeah but the particles aren't solid, they're ripples of energy. back and forth this goes.

    the fact is, the inner worlds are too strange and unsettling to understand. you'll stay the hell outta there if you know what's good for you.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:56 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187967&p=2697511#p2697511

    dang, gamer asks a good question there in that last post. on the fly i want to mention searle's chinese room, and call it a day. but the problem is deeper than that. the problem isn't just about a machine not being able to understand meaning and just following symbolic instructions for response, instead. the real problem is; even considering the 'intentionality' of human minds, you should still be able to reproduce a system that was a physical match of the human mind, and therefore capable of intentionality. if you can't do that, then it means there is something nonmaterial about the mind.

    neurological complexity shouldn't be an issue. you'd just make a highly complex machine to match it.

    strong AI is a damn interesting field of research, and i like to keep an eye on it.

    so this thing about a machine finding informal fallacies. here's the problem. identifying formal fallacies is easy; the logical rules for the symbols and functions are programmed in the machine, and the machine identifies them. no problem. but some informal fallacies are operating with other kinds of rules for meaning. it isn't as simple as processing rules for the use of words because when committing an informal fallacy, assumptions are made within indeterminate contexts.

    for example, joe commits an argument from authority. bob hears it and is able to recognize what is happening; joe thinks that bob will accept his argument if he knows newton supports it.

    ah, but what does 'support' mean? would a machine be able to recognize an instance of support?

    here's where it gets interesting. if you programmed the machine to look for the statement '... because newton said it', the machine's understanding of the fallacious nature of the statement would be a formal understanding; it would be programmed to find premises that didn't lead directly to conclusions. it would recognize that 'because newton said it' was a hidden premise, but it wouldn't understand the nature of trustworthiness, which is the reason why newton is considered an authority... which is the reason the fallacy is committed.

    so the machine only recognizes the causal problem inherent in the hidden premise; 'because newton said it'. the truth of the conclusion wouldn't follow such from such a cause, for the machines reasoning, but it would for the human's reasoning, because the human 'trusts' newton.

    the thing is, you couldn't add to the context a symbolic representation of this 'trust', so the machine would only recognize the formal problem with the argument, not the informal.

    now i'll argue the other side. if the meaning of 'trust' can be stated and explained clearly, why would such an explaination be unable to be included in the language program for the machine?

    if in addition to the statement 'because newton said it', there was also an explanation of why this counted as logical support for the argument, i.e., newton is often right about this stuff, the machine could then identify the informal fallacy of argument from authority as inadequate for a proof... because newton wouldn't necessarily be right just because he is often right.

    i dunno man. i could see it both ways. seems to me that AI should be possible. there shouldn't be any kind of meaningfulness that a machine wouldn't be able to detect, provided enough explanation is given for the use of the language... provided its rules are fully explained or 'coded' for the machine.

    ew here's another one. the ad hom. how does a machine know joe is or isn't an asshole? it would first have to know what an asshole is (good luck explaining that to a machine) to be able to recognize an attempt to disprove an argument that joe is wrong because joe is one.

    you'd have to list all the possible ways a person could be an asshole, for the machine. hell i can't even list all the ways for myself. have you ever just known someone was an asshole without doing an inventory of the reasons why? i have. there's just so many different ways of being an asshole as long as time continues. at every moment there's a new way to be an asshole. a machine is relying on a finite set of symbolic data for the meaning of the word 'asshole', and it can't know of any news ways of being an asshole until those ways are coded for it.

    somebody mail this post to searle for me. i wanna see what he says about it.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Zoot Allures on Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:54 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=2697520#p2697520

    look at em go.

    Urwrongx1000 has used a metaphor of eating a dish that has been spit in by the chef, as describing the feeling a male has when he's having sex with a female who isn't a virgin.

    that's a little much, but we see what he means. pandora, on the other hand, argues that wanting to find, marry and keep a young virgin female is like treating the female as an object.

    so here's what's happening. i'm gonna get right to it.

    there is a unique kind of repulsion that is felt at the thought of wynona's non-virgin vagina, that doesn't exist for the thought of a non-virgin johnson.

    wynona's vagina is an internal set of organs. it is always very warm and very moist, so can potentially harbor micro-organisms, bacteria, germs, etc. a johnson is an external organ, and while it certainly is possible for a male to have an STD, his johnson will usually be much cleaner than wynona's big brown beaver, provided the male practices at least moderate hygiene.

    in addition to this fear, the thought of another johnson being in the beaver as well, amplifies that fear even more.

    male's intuit this fact, and so naturally want to avoid wynona. even though a female might be completely clean, male's can't know that until they know that... and by then they've already met the beaver.

    this is what pandora fails to realize, and rightfully so; she doesn't deal with beavers, only johnsons, so this isn't a problem for her.

    so along with the natural attraction to youth and beauty (which was at one time endemic to the species survival), there is the natural aversion to non-virgin beavers.

    what's unfortunate is that clean, non-virgin females can be mistaken for wynonas. that's not fair, and its understandable.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 01, 2018 11:09 am

    it's not just the incredibly sick world view that ecmandu has, but also that lifeless stare he has in his videos, that has convinced me. not since christianity have i seen something so decrepit and repulsive. that he has developed an elaborate philosophy to expunge from himself the responsibility of being unable to merely get laid, and placed the blame on evolution and the nature of the universe with such indignant self righteousness and malicious satisfaction, is really something to behold.

    this is some of the most remarkable neurosis i have ever seen on a philosophy board.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSbR0Ee0-Y&app=desktop


    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 01, 2018 11:13 am

    ... and because the agony of not having a girlfriend is so overwhelming, reality must not be real. it has to be a collection of hallucinated platonic particulars.

    wow.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 01, 2018 11:17 am

    we have to save this dude, folks. we either persuade him to kill himself, or we give him a complete make-over and hook him up with a girlfriend.

    "a yes, a no... a straight line, a goal" - Nietzsche, On an Approach to the Rehabilitation of an Ecmandu

    can we get him a russian mail-order bride maybe? those women will marry anyone to get to the states.


    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 01, 2018 3:22 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193989&p=2700061#p2700061

    Driving down the freeway, I witness first hand the insanity. Traffic jams, piled and piled as high as the eye can see. I go to beaches, littered with more cigarettes than sand. What is man's end? What has he accomplished? This kind of social experiment, a kind of slow death of the spirit?

    For what reason, does he slave through traffic, to go to his slave job, perhaps work at a factory all day. For what progress? For where, is the quality of life? What has mankind achieved? Has he gained any further understanding of his consciousness?

    these conditions are all stage props put into place by fate to push those fortunate ones into a peculiar (and very rare) state of awarness and enlightenment, provided that they have suffered enough, and in great form, from opposition disproportionate to their power to endure without being pushed to the edge of madness.

    the battle is not with the world, but with oneself... with one's own fears. if lacking the courage to face that fear is rationalized by taking into consideration the extent... or i should say risk... in doing what one believes one has to do in order to conquer the fear, it is the greatest of all possible forms of struggle. to do so brings one to madness, but madness is the highest and greatest privilege.

    every man is in his own unique circumstances, and every set of circumstances brings into realization a form of this internal dialogue with oneself. those things mentioned in the quote above are only insignificant, added frustrations hardly worth complaining about. it is only when in addition to a personal struggle that demands, or forces rather, a man into admitting to himself that to do what he believes is 'right' would risk his very life, do these things have any substance; as one more thing pushing him forward to his breaking point.

    but none of that stuff above in itself is absurd, because there never was a question of whether or not the world has an agreeable purpose and should be satisfying. only after the assumption that life should be easy and agreeable would such objections have any currency.

    really that rant depreciates real suffering, and therefore makes impossible an understanding of true greatness. greatness is not wrestling with minor trivialities. it is wrestling with oneself in the face of having to choose making impossible decisions. to remain a coward and experience the shame before onself, or become the hero and risk one's life to do what one believes is 'right'.

    the rest don't matter. the gods pay no attention to them.






    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Wed May 02, 2018 3:28 pm

    Ecmandu believes there is a perfect, platonic realm where everybody gets a girlfriend, and that the fact that nobody will date him is a hallucination.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Wed May 02, 2018 3:32 pm

    If hed stop wearing that fucking blue coat every day of his life, maybe one of the neighborhood chicks would check him out.
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Wed May 02, 2018 5:25 pm

    Zoot Allures wrote:strong AI is a damn interesting field of research, and i like to keep an eye on it.

    So interesting, in fact, that I have to fight the urge to spend all of my time trying to devise The Universal Thinking Algorithm.

    i dunno man. i could see it both ways. seems to me that AI should be possible. there shouldn't be any kind of meaningfulness that a machine wouldn't be able to detect, provided enough explanation is given for the use of the language... provided its rules are fully explained or 'coded' for the machine.

    ew here's another one. the ad hom. how does a machine know joe is or isn't an asshole? it would first have to know what an asshole is (good luck explaining that to a machine) to be able to recognize an attempt to disprove an argument that joe is wrong because joe is one.

    you'd have to list all the possible ways a person could be an asshole, for the machine. hell i can't even list all the ways for myself. have you ever just known someone was an asshole without doing an inventory of the reasons why? i have. there's just so many different ways of being an asshole as long as time continues. at every moment there's a new way to be an asshole. a machine is relying on a finite set of symbolic data for the meaning of the word 'asshole', and it can't know of any news ways of being an asshole until those ways are coded for it.

    That's why we have machine learning. Instead of teaching machines how to solve specific problems, such as how to detect an asshole, you teach them how to solve problems in general. The goal is to make a machine that can learn from experience. You don't tell it how to do specific tasks such as how to recognize a face or how to detect an asshole; that would require too much introspection on our part. Rather, you tell it how to make experience-based inferences. You want a machine that can take as its input something like a sequence of numbers such as 1 2 3 4 5 and then output either a hypothesis (a rule that generated the data) or a guess regarding some unknown data point that is of interest to us (e.g. the next number in the sequence.) The former is induction (see Solomonoff Induction) and the latter is transduction (see Vapnik.) If you can write such a program then you can recreate any kind of intelligent human behavior you want provided that you have enough data you can plug into your machine. The disadvantage of such an approach, as you can guess, is the fact that it is data-intensive; but I don't think there is an alternative.

    Your approach resembles that of Symbolic AI, which is, as I am told, a rather outdated approach to AGI. In such an approach, you first study the aspect of human behavior that you want to simulate such as, for example, the mechanism by which we decide whether someone is an asshole or not. Once you understand the underlying mechanism, if you ever do, you write an algorithm that matches it. The second part is pretty straightforward; the first, however, can be hellish, since those aspects of human behavior that tend to be of interest to us are extremely complex. Their maps don't have that Platonic simplicity that equations such as F=ma do. The smarter approach is to study how we think, i.e. to figure out the relation between the set of all possible experiences and the set of all possible hypothesis (or, as is my preference, the set of all possible inferences from such an experience), and then write a corresponding computer program.

    Solomonoff's approach is to enumerate all the possible hypotheses, as a set of computer programs that are written using some kind of programming language that can represent every conceivable relation, and then choose the one that best fits the data. This does not work for many reasons (such as that the number of possible computer programs is infinite, that some computer programs never halt, that it is impossible to algorithmically decide whether a given computer program will ever halt, that there are many different hypotheses that fit the data equally well and so on.) It's a boring, naive, top-down approach to AGI that I have to deal with, not because I came up with it on my own, but because other people before me came up with it.

    Most of the current AGI research is focused on this technique of finding a hypothesis that fits the data . . . Somehow, it is ingrained in human psyche that in order to make inferences we need to go from the specific (e.g. observations) to the general (e.g. theory) before we go back to the specific again (e.g. inferences.)

    Given a sequence of numbers such as 1 2 3 4 5, most people will think that we first need to devise a hypothesis -- which is a fancy term for theory -- that explains this sequence; in statistical terms, that "generates" it. They think you need to know that "every number in the sequence is equal to the sum of the number that precedes it and one" before you can say that the next number in the sequence is 6. You need to use induction (or abduction, as Peirce and Popper would claim) in order to come up with a hypothesis and then use deduction to extract its inferences. I beg to differ. I think that the first thing we do is guess the next number in the sequence and then use introspection, or self-consciousness, to figure out how we did it. In this case, it is pretty easy to see how we make inferences; in other cases, it's pretty difficult. The more complex the underlying mechanism (or rule, or relation), the more difficult it is to capture it using words. Our words can only deal with mechanisms that have Platonic simplicity. Most people are surprised when they see that they make decisions unconsciously without knowing how they do it; I am not. It does not surprise me that I can do facial recognition without knowing how I do it. Hell, I walk without knowing every little step I make during the process.

    This theory-free approach is known as transductive inference. It's how Vladimir Vapnik calls it at any rate. I believe he was influenced by Jean Piaget's related but importantly different concept of transductive reasoning. The idea is that we study the relation between the set of all possible experiences and the set of all possible inferences. That's my approach.

    Writing an asshole detection algorithm on your own would be a pretty difficult thing, but if you have a machine that can learn and if you have enough training data organized in a set of example-label pairs such as {(P1, not asshole), (P2, asshole), ..., (Pn, asshole/not asshole)} where P1, P2, ..., Pn is a set of people each one defined by a set of properties, you might be able to do it with little to no effort.
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Wed May 02, 2018 6:08 pm

    Zoot Allures wrote:part of being a superior male is the acceptance that he may not be selected... and he accepts this knowing that what is important isn't about 'him', but the gene pool. he rejoices in the fact that there are superior males out there reproducing, and he keeps his optimism, loving the future of man through them, vicariously.

    The question is what the superior man wants. You have to acknowledge that superiority and tastes are two different things. The goal of a superior person need not be the reproduction of superior males of any kind. That's what you think (for some strange reason.)

    Finally, a superior man who has been restrained from attaining his goals might become depressed . . . all depending on what his superiority is about. Emotional resilience is a form of strength but just because you are depressed does not mean you have less emotional resilience than others. It might simply mean you were forced into a situation that is so difficult it requires more mental strength than anyone ever had.

    Just some food for thought.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Thu May 03, 2018 11:14 am

    I wrote:strong AI is a damn interesting field of research, and i like to keep an eye on it.

    this was a lie, andy. the last time i read anything on AI was years ago when i came across chalmer's p-zombie argument. i just said that because i wanted to seem smart to the intelligensia of POD. i did, however, have a genuine interest in gamer's question about AI recognizing informal fallacies, and felt that i did raise some plausible objections to such a possibility. in any event, while your dissertation was a bit over my head, i appreciate your time and am impressed by your knowledge on the subject. you've come a long way, andy.

    and now i must admit i have nothing more to offer and gracefully withdraw myself from this conversation.

    i'm sorry to have been so much of a bore, but in my own funny ways i find i learn much more.


    Last edited by Zoots Allures on Thu May 03, 2018 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total


    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Thu May 03, 2018 11:23 am

    andy wrote:The question is what the superior man wants. You have to acknowledge that superiority and tastes are two different things. The goal of a superior person need not be the reproduction of superior males of any kind. That's what you think (for some strange reason.)

    because there is only one possible kind of morality for the higher type. if this type wishes to transcend his own egoism and participate in a working altruism, this is the only available option; to live in the pursuit of becoming a higher type, or in the service of those who are in this pursuit. but one thing is certain. he cannot, under any circumstances, identify with the herd morality, as that would lead to his own destruction.

    what i mean is, the superior male sees in other superior males what he sees in himself, and delights in this, takes part in that community and aspires to preserve and protect it. his tastes are is goals; he is pleased aesthetically by the image of his type and wishes to procure it, to hold on to it, to be in service to it.


    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Thu May 03, 2018 11:35 am

    Zoot wrote:this was a lie, andy. the last time i read anything on AI was years ago when i came across chalmer's p-zombie argument.

    You don't have to worry about that, Zooty. I don't read anything on AI either. I don't even know what that Chalmer's p-zombie argument is about. But I thought I should give you some basic directions . . . which obviously went over your head and made you feel inferior (which wasn't my aim.) The knowledge I've displayed in that post is pretty basic, something every educated person more or less knows.

    i did, however, have a genuine interest in gamer's question about AI recognizing informal fallacies, and felt that i did raise some plausible objections to such a possibility.

    And you had to retreat . . . Fine by me, just don't try to turn the tables by playing humble.
    You're on a philosophy forum, dude. There is no escaping epistemological questions -- and AI is tightly connected to epistemilogical issues.
    Or quite simply logical issues . . . a great deal of philosophy is simply logic.

    Your approach to AI is deductive.
    The popular approach to AI is inductive (or abductive.)
    My approach is transductive.

    But that's too complicated for you . . .
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Thu May 03, 2018 11:42 am

    Zoots Allures wrote:what i mean is, the superior male sees in other superior males what he sees in himself, and delights in this, takes part in that community and aspires to preserve and protect it. his tastes are is goals; he is pleased aesthetically by the image of his type and wishes to procure it, to hold on to it, to be in service to it.

    That's some very neat Platonicism.

    There is a single Zoot on planet Earth and a googol of Zoots on some other planet outside of our planetary system and that single little Zoot is going to be happy to die because he's sure his "kind" will survive for the next infinite number of years. I am not going to buy that story.

    If you're not living with your kind, they are not your kind -- at the very least, they are NO LONGER your kind.
    End of story.

    Too much emphasis on genetics makes you an idiot.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Thu May 03, 2018 12:01 pm

    andy wrote:But I thought I should give you some basic directions . . . which obviously went over your head and made you feel inferior (which wasn't my aim.)

    i'm not entirely sure i won't ever check that stuff out you talked about. i may look into it if for some reason if i suddenly find it important to know. and don't worry about trying not to hurt my feelings. i'm too good at too many things to ever feel inferior in general. only in the company of a specialist would i ever feel inferior in regards to a subject, and that feeling is no insult to myself. i'd rather be happy that i had finally found someone better than me that i could learn from.

    andy wrote: just don't try to turn the tables by playing humble.

    oh no sir. i wasn't pretending. i truly am rather ignorant of the subject.

    andy wrote:Or quite simply logical issues . . . a great deal of philosophy is simply logic.


    thank you for pointing that out to me. i was under the impression that anything can be true. now that i'm aware that this is not the case, i think i'm ready to become a philosopher.

    andy wrote:That's some very neat Platonicism.

    this must be your new word for the month. don't worry, it'll pass.

    andy wrote:If you're not living with your kind, they are not your kind -- at the very least, they are NO LONGER your kind.
    End of story.

    we are ALWAYS together in spirit, young man. some of us never meet, but we have always been together.

    if you have to ask 'how', you'll never know.













    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Thu May 03, 2018 12:12 pm

    and btw, i'm impressed by your reaction to the knowledge of being superior to someone in a subject. i was just chatting with a friend about socrates' delight in being able to confound his subjects, and that this isn't necessarily malicious.

    but you're at stage one of the metamorphosis into a master. the exhilarating feeling of being in charge, and the need to drive that point home with great force. the next stage is accepting that rank in stride and with grace, making no effort to remind anyone of it.


    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Thu May 03, 2018 12:40 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193920&p=2700496#p2700496

    If everyone in the universe agreed that morality was fake, they would all be wrong; making the statement proves morality. You deemed it good to offer the statement, thus morality is not fake.

    this is an old objectivist trick that only fools the newbs. and i'm not even sure Ecmandu realizes it's a trick. i think he really thinks this is a meaningful observation.

    morality is not fake insofar as it a study of human behaviors and the causes/purposes for those behaviors. it is real, because people really behave for real reasons.

    but he's confusing a descriptive statement about morality with prescriptive moral statements in general. or rather, he assumes that because morality is real, moral evaluations must be real in the same sense.

    and he also believes that because someone thinks it is 'good' to declare that morality is 'fake', morality must not be fake, or else this someone wouldn't feel that their objection to morality was 'good'.

    but this person's argument is for the sake of being 'correct', not 'good', unless it is good to be correct, and it is not.

    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Thu May 03, 2018 2:08 pm

    Let's say that Platonicism is Platonicity in action.

    Platonicity: the focus on those pure, well-defined, and easily discernible objects like triangles, or more social notions like friendship or love, at the cost of ignoring those objects of seemingly messier and less tractable structures.

    What I call Platonicity, after the ideas (and personality) of the philosopher Plato, is our tendency to mistake the map for the territory, to focus on pure and well-defined "forms," whether objects, like triangles, or social notions, like Utopias (societies built according to some blueprint of what "makes sense"), even nationalities. When these ideas and crisp constructs inhabit our minds, we privilege them over other less elegant objects, those with messier and less tractable structures (an idea that I will elaborate progressively throughout this book).

    These passages are pulled straight from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan.

    You should be familiar with him considering that he's a half-Nietzschean and a Popperian. Very interesting guy. Much more interesting than, say, Jordan Peterson.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Z13 on Fri May 04, 2018 10:48 am

    why you gotta be hatin' on peterson, andy?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:33 pm