Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

General off-topic stuffs goes here.
User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 15th, 2016, 12:05 pm

Aposke wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Apollonian and Dionysian are pretty much a dialectic, aren't they?

Please specify which of the billions of historical interpretations of the word "dialectic" you mean.
If you're talking about Hegel then yeah, probably. But you're likely to know more about Hegel than I do, anyway (I've so far only read about him)



i had the realization that reading nietzsche prepared me to be a marxist with this shit, it's hilarious
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".
Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » February 15th, 2016, 3:17 pm

Well dang, I just find Nietzsche entertainingly depressing. I don't really get the idea of Hegelian dialectics being able to make Marxist sense of the appollo/dionysos dichtomy though, could you expand on that?

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 15th, 2016, 3:40 pm

Aposke wrote:Well dang, I just find Nietzsche entertainingly depressing. I don't really get the idea of Hegelian dialectics being able to make Marxist sense of the appollo/dionysos dichtomy though, could you expand on that?


Well, it's not meant to really be a specific thing, as much as it trained me into seeing an extremely general pattern. The A looks like vinegar, B looks like baking soda, and then you put them together and it gets all bubbly bubbly. The bubbly bubbly is life. The bubbly bubbly is later N-man's ae/di fusion. The bubbly bubbly is the synthesis, and the synthesis is the class. Nothing really systematic about the articulations of things, but a + b > c in its broadest sense when it seems like a tries to destroy b.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 18th, 2016, 10:23 am

aposke help the ancient egyptian sun god threw this phrase at me and i want responses to it

*regarding almost all moral philosophies, in his view, arriving at paradoxes, another cosmic entity responded*
"Moral system? I'm a fan of preference utilitarianism based on Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem"
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » February 18th, 2016, 11:03 pm

I googled Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem and for the first time encountered a paper on a philosophical issue that looked like it was written by mathematicians.

...like, I can't give any answer to this as I don't even begin to understand what's being discussed there. "Proving" a theory of ethics with mathematics? Satisfying the standard bayesian rationality postulate??

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 19th, 2016, 8:17 am

Aposke wrote:I googled Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem and for the first time encountered a paper on a philosophical issue that looked like it was written by mathematicians.

...like, I can't give any answer to this as I don't even begin to understand what's being discussed there. "Proving" a theory of ethics with mathematics? Satisfying the standard bayesian rationality postulate??


ᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗ
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 19th, 2016, 11:30 pm

Aposke wrote:I googled Harsanyi's Utilitarian Theorem and for the first time encountered a paper on a philosophical issue that looked like it was written by mathematicians.

...like, I can't give any answer to this as I don't even begin to understand what's being discussed there. "Proving" a theory of ethics with mathematics? Satisfying the standard bayesian rationality postulate??



So I'm not going to pretend I understand it now either, but the best I gather

The definition of utility has always been a problem. How does one quantise pleasure yadda yadda. Preference utilitarianism though is based on something more agnostic, which seems to be maximizing liberty<~>social welfare, or rather, the ability for people to act according to their preferences, which isn't very objective but can be better measured in terms of statistics from like game theory etc. And you can measure the impact of some decisions in making others losing choices elsewhere or something elsewhere. I think you take this as a deontic principle or something, maximize liberty.

afaik bayesian rationality postulate = bayes theorem and its implications for generalizing, I think. So I think it's trying to say "the generalizations coming out of using game theory and so on to maximize decisions aren't hasty, are adaptable, and generally sound and related to the matter"

If I understand it it fails at a lot of the same points harm utilitarianism does, like why is social welfare (which I think it means the state of a society relative to its ability to realistically offer choices, avoiding naïve liberty due to the whole leonine contract sort of thing) a good thing or whatnot, but it has an appeal of getting over some of the quantization issues.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 22nd, 2016, 2:19 pm

If someone has no right to disregard someone for not fitting a narrative, why does that person automatically gain the right to disregard people who do fit the narrative?

Maybe instead

"I experienced bullying with XYZ because of my class"
"No, I'm of class and experienced no bullying with XYZ, everything you hate is imaginary"
"You're just [internalized anticlass]"
"everything you hate is imaginary"

It's more like
"I experienced bullying with XYZ because of my class"
"But, I'm of class and experienced no bullying with XYZ"

"maybe there's a subset of XYZ that bullies because of class, and some people have been fortuitous in avoiding such a subset"
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » March 8th, 2016, 2:07 pm

I'm not convinced I understand ethics.

Deontological systems derive from ontologies, rule sets, heuristics that can adjust. Right? What gives the rules justification? I had it stereotyped that Divine Command Theory was the solution, and I suppose it is a solution. But in "painful choice" scenerios rules usually break down, like the trolly problem. So where do they get relative weight? Right?

Consequentialism is good at creating rule sets looking at numbers. To me it has a weird, very intimate relationship with epistemology, or I guess methodology and the study of methodologies, if I didn't misunderstand that word. Consequentialist systems often have some very fundamental problems of what values to pursue methodologies aside. So like, do you select for harm reduction, or do you select for freedom? I see them as interrelated, but I guess anyone who thinks sjws are orwellian things begs to differ. There's also an issue of quantifying anything it's using as a measure of good. Right?

As an aside, the two often butt heads about whether or not the ends justify the means. Deontologies don't tolerate their rules being broken, often even when other rules might be broken, and their relationship to painful choices sometimes results in real people seemingly redefining good and evil to get out of it (does inaction count as good or evil? Is evil thompsonian (mere absence of good)? what? Meanwhile, Consequentialism is over there euthanizing kittens and castrating boys, and raising inequity to provoke revolutions in the name of 'accelerationism' since it thinks it can immanentize the eschaton (make tangible the end times) and bring us utopia that way. But god damn if it doesn't have good methods and ways to update its methodology (bayesian reasoning). But that's not to say deontology can't bite bullets - Divine Command Theory says to stone homosexuals, and if your categorical imperative (~act only according to that maxim, by which you can at the same time desire that it should become a universal law) is imperfect (which isn't even bad necessarily) you can find yourself, say, valuing ideals of 'freedom' over 'happiness' or vice versa (*cough*). It's not to say absolutely that a particular categorical imperative is wrong; but it isn't necessarily free of bullets to be bitten



Then there's Aretic or virtue ethics, which despite my collection of Nietzsche I think I might understand least. But there's a cultural reason - this used to be the mark of the nearly dead breed of paleoconservatives, consequentialism for the leftists and the libertarians, and deontology for the religious, whether puritan (the liberals in the US) or not (the evangelicals, reformed, and the neoconservatives). But as I understand it, there's a platonic ideal of a man (or at least, what you want to be), and how to live ideally involves living according to those ideals. So it's necessarily idealist; the others probably don't have those obligations overtly but I don't really know. I don't really know that it cares, per se, about painful choices, but with regards to results and intentions (which while emblematic of consequentialism and deontology respectively doesn't mean that the other can't be concerned with them) often opens the way to reasoning that bad eithers are the result of bad virtues.


Which opens up the question, I think, about the just world fallacy. So what provoked this meditation was someone on facebook reasoning that

Most people aren't intuitive deontologists or intuitive consequentialists. They're intuitive just-world-ists. Picking intuitively good/noble/righteous actions always has intuitively good outcomes.

If you try to propose a real or imagined scenario in which deontology and consequentialism come into conflict, people's first instinct isn't to endorse deontology or endorse consequentialism; it's to do a search for reasons why you're lying and the good/noble/righteous-seeming action really does produce the best outcome.



And on the other hand, the virtue ethicists often will look back and do this very sort of thing. There was a case a few years back in Michigan, that I heard about from the reasonable doubts podcast, wherein a conservative, christian, philanthropist baseball star managed to get away with serial rape for years because nobody took accusations against him seriously. Afterall, he did good things, he received good things (a modest mlb career, money, health, etc). obviously he was living a good life? But the main thing that pissed me off and why I was allergic to deontology so long is that most of his actions were framed from divine command theory and biblidolotry.




A very marginal system was something that tried to be scientific. Pragmatism, I guess it was called. And basically it had the idea of doing whatever, and if things feel bad/end up bad later, we'll just make a list of actions and update their good/badness according to statistical methods. It was... not widely taken up.


To me, it seems like the three main systems regardless of their formulae result in a unique sort of justificatory regress. You have methods, but why use the methods? Because of principles. You have principles, but why have principles? because of virtues. You have virtues, but why have those virtues? Their correlation with consequences. So you get this trefoil gordian knot of justificatory regression. There might be implication - if they're part of one system, they should inherit each other's paradoxes at some level. But the circular justification itself is a kind of fallacy.





There's a way to sever the gordian knot. There is with anything. I guess there's also the position of moral nihilism, which is scary, for everyone, for me. Moral questions ask if a ~thing is good or bad, so moral nihilism would say there isn't anything good or bad (at least in a way these theories are concerned with).

Alexander's blade, I guess, is the justification for moral tendencies in absence of morality itself being a real thing embedded in the universe somewhere. And I think I got it - evolution. Moral norms (in practice) might have a justificatory problem in metaethics, but in general practice every normative ethical theory has the same fundamental principle underlying it - maximizing survival - and this probably isn't an accident. After all, normative theories that don't maximize survival don't survive as often as those that do do. Most of the great moral teachings - love thy neighbor, take care of the weak, don't go out of your way to fuck up the world - are almost trivially parts of (egoistic) altruism. Don't be hostile to group is a good heuristic when you've evolved dependency on group to survive. Take care of the weak is the essense of K-selection, or selecting for holding capacity in your ecosystem. Don't steal can mean don't take food from the hungry. Don't murder lowers your species genetic pool, wastes a lot of resources, and so on. So morality isn't a thing to fetishize - like you're not going to find it embedded in the function of the universe, it's not floating out there somewhere with the platonic solids. But you are going to get some statistics dealing with iterated repetition, variance, and natural selection that can make something like that. And make something opposite of that, as well as something symmetrical to that (manifest in, say, truely solitary animals). It's just an emergent accident.


There's apparently a consensus that 'the enlightenment attempt to derive morals from reason failed'. Maybe the trefoil is why.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby EarthPhantomTS » March 9th, 2016, 10:58 pm

Anyone know how hatred came to be? Because I don't, and I'd like to know!

I mean, I have asked this before, and I probably will again, but why does hatred exist? Why for the love of whatever deity may or may not exist did humans evolve the capability for hatred?! Though you can probably take my exacerbation with worst emotion's very existence with a grain of salt since I'm the one who thinks the One Goddess caused the Big Bang when she masturbated a bit too hard, exploding in a humongous cloud of lust and desire, imbuing us all with a spark of divinity and a noble purpose to spread Her blessing of love, desire, and lust with all the other minor gods and goddesses of Her realm, which kinda doesn't leave much room for hatred, but there you go.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » March 9th, 2016, 11:12 pm

EarthPhantomTS wrote:Anyone know how hatred came to be? Because I don't, and I'd like to know!

I mean, I have asked this before, and I probably will again, but why does hatred exist? Why for the love of whatever deity may or may not exist did humans evolve the capability for hatred?! Though you can probably take my exacerbation with worst emotion's very existence with a grain of salt since I'm the one who thinks the One Goddess caused the Big Bang when she masturbated a bit too hard, exploding in a humongous cloud of lust and desire, imbuing us all with a spark of divinity and a noble purpose to spread Her blessing of love, desire, and lust with all the other minor gods and goddesses of Her realm, which kinda doesn't leave much room for hatred, but there you go.



It's a side effect of self-preservation, extended because of empathy. Look at any political group besides a few millenial cults and their underlaying goals can be said to be "make the world better for our children". People wouldn't hate if they didn't have self-preservation instincts, and wouldn't hate in the human way we hate if they didn't have the empathy to want to protect someone else.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » March 15th, 2016, 6:44 am

How do you derive coherence from infinity? How do you make a unit line segment from an infinite line?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » March 15th, 2016, 11:30 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How do you derive coherence from infinity? How do you make a unit line segment from an infinite line?

By ignoring a whole bunch of inconsistencies and seeing how far it brings you.
If at some point shit starts to get really weird maybe it's time to reconsider your standpoint, take a few steps back, and start somewhere else along the line where things still "made sense".

I mean how else can beings with a finite capability for reasoning ever hope to make sense of something as incredibly vast and complex (and infinite, perhaps?) as the universe(s?)?

User avatar
chridd
Posts: 210
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 9:20 pm
Location: the internet
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby chridd » March 16th, 2016, 2:44 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How do you derive coherence from infinity?
What do you mean by 'coherence'? And what does it mean to derive something from a number(ish thing)?

How do you make a unit line segment from an infinite line?
I'd probably put two points on the line, one unit apart, and then erase the rest of the line. Or are you looking for a bijection from ℝ to [0,1]?

Aposke wrote:I mean how else can beings with a finite capability for reasoning ever hope to make sense of something as incredibly vast and complex (and infinite, perhaps?) as the universe(s?)?
By only looking at the parts you care about, by using approximations that are good enough despite not being perfect, and by looking for patterns and rules rather than trying to understand each piece of the universe separately.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » March 16th, 2016, 10:26 am

If you have a truly infinite line, every point on the line is infinitely far from the ends. Furthermore those points, as part of a line, are defined by their relationship specifically to each other. Math including a non-number like infinity ends up looking a lot like math with 0, and for a truly infinite line, I'm not really sure how the line also doesn't end up infinitely dense following the math out.

And so then it becomes a question of how to get a resolution out of it - two points infinitely far from the ends, infinitely far from each other, in the same place infinitely far from the end points. Do you subtract from an infinite line to get a line segment? Do you divide an infinite line to get a line segment?

When we think in euclidean approximations we're almost blessed with being forced to work in non-euclidean approximations, shadows and representations far from any platonic ideal.

When it comes to the universe itself, well, as I understand it: we're not entirely sure if the universe is infinite or not, and most of our measurements depend on the cosmological constant and whether the typology of spacetime is flat. But the interesting thing that seems most likely is that on the timescale of the big bang we were in a de Sitter space (curved), but the relationship to the cosmological constant and dark energy with cosmic inflation is such that we're tending asymptotically towards a flat universe (as a kind of equilibrium) and asymptotically infinite spacetime. As such we have essentially infinite spacetime, while for any given 'moment' (whatever that means) we actually have a finite spacetime.



I feel like the inability to divide from infinity has important theological implications. If you accept the notion of divine simplicity, which is effetely 'god can violate logic (e.g. build a stone heavier than he can lift) but chooses not to because it's not in his nature', I'm not really sure how, not because God is limited, but because the thing he affected/effected is limited, you can take a portion of infinite power and convert that into a coherent finite universe; or, very small but very relatively high entropy. It would violate divine simplicity for a God to interact with a world that needs to operate on finitudes, is what I claim.

A theist I've been arguing with keeps switching between superlative potency and omnilative potency midsentence and it's really annoying.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby EarthPhantomTS » April 9th, 2016, 6:03 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:
EarthPhantomTS wrote:Anyone know how hatred came to be? Because I don't, and I'd like to know!

I mean, I have asked this before, and I probably will again, but why does hatred exist? Why for the love of whatever deity may or may not exist did humans evolve the capability for hatred?! Though you can probably take my exacerbation with worst emotion's very existence with a grain of salt since I'm the one who thinks the One Goddess caused the Big Bang when she masturbated a bit too hard, exploding in a humongous cloud of lust and desire, imbuing us all with a spark of divinity and a noble purpose to spread Her blessing of love, desire, and lust with all the other minor gods and goddesses of Her realm, which kinda doesn't leave much room for hatred, but there you go.



It's a side effect of self-preservation, extended because of empathy. Look at any political group besides a few millenial cults and their underlaying goals can be said to be "make the world better for our children". People wouldn't hate if they didn't have self-preservation instincts, and wouldn't hate in the human way we hate if they didn't have the empathy to want to protect someone else.


Honestly, I can't really understand this, because of how dangerous hatred is. But then, I'm the "make sexy sexy love Image, not war" type.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Zummorr
Posts: 382
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Zummorr » April 15th, 2016, 6:34 am

There is a word I cannot find, its a greek or latin "hipster" word. that means "Meeting with God." it's in the same vein as apothesis iirc but I cannot remember it.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » June 12th, 2016, 6:28 am

I really don't get why people find the "brains ~ computers" analogy so bad.

Yeah, there's no userland, and the way things are executed it's like it's mostly firmware. That nerves aren't binary is besides the point, because transistors aren't even really binary anymore and number bases don't actually matter. There seems to be a lot of information that doesn't have a physical location, but this doesn't seem different to me from ram based systems.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » June 12th, 2016, 5:46 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:I really don't get why people find the "brains ~ computers" analogy so bad.

Yeah, there's no userland, and the way things are executed it's like it's mostly firmware. That nerves aren't binary is besides the point, because transistors aren't even really binary anymore and number bases don't actually matter. There seems to be a lot of information that doesn't have a physical location, but this doesn't seem different to me from ram based systems.

I'm sure you're aware of the chinese room thought experiment. It's a bit crude, but it gets the basic idea of why thinking of the brain as functionally equivalent to a computer is bad across. There's a better explanation of it in Alva Noe's "Out of our Heads" though, which I'd like to cite because he's probably better at explaining it than I am:

Some problems admit of mechanical solutions. If you want to know how many people are in a room, you can count them. Coming up with a solution requires no more than an ability to add one again and again. Likewise, you don't need to understand long division in order to find the answers to long-division problems. You just need to be careful. [...] Any sufficiently careful idiot can do it. A machine can do it. In the same way, you don't need to be able to grasp the vast number of combinations and permutations possible on a Rubik's Cube to learn the tricks that allow you to "solve" it in seconds.
An algorithm is a recipe or procedure for solving a problem. It is [...] a program that enables one (a child, an idiot, a machine) to reach a desired conclusion in a finite number of steps. Some problems can be solved by algorithms, some cannot. There is no general procedure for deciding, for any given puzzle or problem, whether it is "decidable" by purely mechanical, formal methods. It has been shown, however, that any problem that is mechanically decidable can be computed by any of a class of formal systems. A digital computer [...] is one such physically realized formal system.

But it would be a mistake to think that these findings [...] prove that our brains are, in effect, computers. For this claim is founded on a mistake. No computer actually performs a calculation, not even a simple one. [...] crucially, understanding a problem or a computation does not consist in merely following a rule blindly. [...] there's all the difference in the world between understanding the solution to a problem and getting a good score on a test because you have memorized a recipe for doing so. Computers may generate an answer, but insofar as they do so by following rules blindly, they do so with no understanding.
But more important, computers don't even follow rules blindly. They don't follow recipes. Just as a wristwatch doesn't know what time it is even though we use it to keep track of the time, so the computer doesn't understand the operations that we perform with it. We think with computers, but computers don't think: they are tools. If computers are information processors, they are information processors in the way watches are. And that fact does not help us understand the powers of human cognition.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » June 12th, 2016, 7:07 pm

Aposke wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:I really don't get why people find the "brains ~ computers" analogy so bad.

Yeah, there's no userland, and the way things are executed it's like it's mostly firmware. That nerves aren't binary is besides the point, because transistors aren't even really binary anymore and number bases don't actually matter. There seems to be a lot of information that doesn't have a physical location, but this doesn't seem different to me from ram based systems.

I'm sure you're aware of the chinese room thought experiment. It's a bit crude, but it gets the basic idea of why thinking of the brain as functionally equivalent to a computer is bad across. There's a better explanation of it in Alva Noe's "Out of our Heads" though, which I'd like to cite because he's probably better at explaining it than I am:

Some problems admit of mechanical solutions. If you want to know how many people are in a room, you can count them. Coming up with a solution requires no more than an ability to add one again and again. Likewise, you don't need to understand long division in order to find the answers to long-division problems. You just need to be careful. [...] Any sufficiently careful idiot can do it. A machine can do it. In the same way, you don't need to be able to grasp the vast number of combinations and permutations possible on a Rubik's Cube to learn the tricks that allow you to "solve" it in seconds.
An algorithm is a recipe or procedure for solving a problem. It is [...] a program that enables one (a child, an idiot, a machine) to reach a desired conclusion in a finite number of steps. Some problems can be solved by algorithms, some cannot. There is no general procedure for deciding, for any given puzzle or problem, whether it is "decidable" by purely mechanical, formal methods. It has been shown, however, that any problem that is mechanically decidable can be computed by any of a class of formal systems. A digital computer [...] is one such physically realized formal system.

But it would be a mistake to think that these findings [...] prove that our brains are, in effect, computers. For this claim is founded on a mistake. No computer actually performs a calculation, not even a simple one. [...] crucially, understanding a problem or a computation does not consist in merely following a rule blindly. [...] there's all the difference in the world between understanding the solution to a problem and getting a good score on a test because you have memorized a recipe for doing so. Computers may generate an answer, but insofar as they do so by following rules blindly, they do so with no understanding.
But more important, computers don't even follow rules blindly. They don't follow recipes. Just as a wristwatch doesn't know what time it is even though we use it to keep track of the time, so the computer doesn't understand the operations that we perform with it. We think with computers, but computers don't think: they are tools. If computers are information processors, they are information processors in the way watches are. And that fact does not help us understand the powers of human cognition.


Not at my most articulate right now, please bear with me


This doesn't really differ from my understanding of the brain. We don't understand most of the processes going on. We're no more aware of the electro-chemical pulses running through our neurons than a clock is aware of the gears turning in its system, or more significantly, than a computer knows of the electric pulses running through its circuits. In fact a computer might even be more aware of its fan (something you should never turn off but can if you give the right signal to the kernel) than the human is aware of its heart (something you can't turn off without doing the robot equivalent of using pneumatic arms to destroy yourself or overclocking yourself to burn it out)

In my view, consciousness and understanding are mostly the juxtaposition of what information the brain is accessing/receiving and the 'daemons' running in the background pruning, cleaning, and (overlapping with the kernel in computing) scheduling tasks (and sleep is a massive maintenance lockdown thing kinda like logging in and out to get rid of entropy)

There's some important differences, granted. There's a ton of conflicting stimuli/inputs to the brain at any given time, and it's from this perception of indecision I think as the neurons with the stronger signal suppress the others that most of consciousness actually comes from. But I don't see this as really a big problem to the analogy, any more than monitors not having a good analog are a problem for it going the other way. I mean, yeah, really, the brain's a beehive, only instead of flying around, they pilot a flesh gundam, but underlying that seems to be the same fundamental "information as impedances+actions as deterministic processes"


I've seen enough headlines to the effect that I think it's common knowledge now, but neurologists imaging brains have shown that regions generally "make the decision" a fairly long time before the rest of brain becomes aware of it and acts on it. We're really good about explaining ourselves like how people with cut brains will make unconscious choices presented to only the other side of themselves or how some neurologically damaged people explain their denial like it's sincere, and this process might explain a lot about our perceptions of self and consciousness.


Biologists working with animals will often describe instincts like Fixed Action Patterns (or, yes, FAPs) that almost invariably see themselves to conclusion. An example is a goose's instinct to roll its egg back into it's nest; it goes through the pattern of rolling something or pushing with its head even if researchers replace the egg or take it away. Most instincts I reckon are like this, if maybe they loop waiting for input/stimuli like a particular smell or something.

(Truly) crazy people (not people with depression or personality disorders, people who can't connect with reality at all) generally don't know they're crazy beyond being told they are, and are pretty good at rationalizing their behaviors. I think that's sort of mix of the above, the sincere denial when the brain isn't communicating with itself properly and the different signals are getting mixed up, and the instinct itself to analyze and rationalize what we do.

I think what I'm saying is, the main differences to me seem to come from assuming free will or some kind of mind body dualism, that I don't think we have a lot of evidence for, when we can explain it all away as something emergent.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » June 12th, 2016, 9:23 pm

Most cognitive scientists I've read (about) tend to not want to talk about free will too much, as it's both a very touchy and very, very hard to research topic. Concerning the mind/body dualism assumption, there's a handy fix for that called Externalism. It's actually born out of the rejection of the Cartesian theory of mind and is, incidentally, the general position Alva Noe argues for.

The catch here isn't that the brain differs from the computer in having free will or some mysterious sort of ethereal "mind", but that it works completely differently to how computers (at least the ones we know) work. For example, human consciousness (which is, at least in part, constituted by ) is the only phenomenon that we know that can have propositional relationships to things. I think that's also what Noe is referring to when he talks about humans having an "understanding" of a problem. To him, understanding is always understanding of something, and insofar more than just the blind following of rules required to achieve something. It requires being able to "stand outside of the problem" (not his terminology, but I don't know how else to word it right now) and analyze it as a problem in its entirety. This "standing outside" isn't mind/body dualism, it's simply a certain functional way of solving a problem, not by running through a set of instructions, but by analyzing the structure of the problem and its environment and deriving a solution from that. It's why humans possess the stunning ability to teach something to themselves and discover and make explicit regularities in a world that, from a purely phenomenal standpoint, seems pretty irregular.

Coming back to Externalism as a broader topic, another reason why the notion that the brain is functionally equivalent to a computer is rejected is because Internalism is rejected. The theory goes that looking at the sum of brain states at any given time isn't enough to functionally describe an individual's state-of-mind (change around the vocabulary a bit and you'll see that this DOES apply for computers). Consider for example an Alzheimer person who made it a habit to look at their notebook every morning to remember what their plans for the day were. In which way does this person and someone who simply remembers their plans for the next day functionally differ? Andy Clarke, who gave this example, would say "None at all", and while I'm not sure I fully agree, there seems to be a strong case here to assume that certain functions of the consciousness can be realized completely outside of the brain, to the point where the brain isn't just not necessary, but actually worse at providing these functions than a part of the outside world (for example, a notebook) would be. That example is from the 1980s, and looking at our current state of technology REALLY outdated, and I think this is even more obvious today.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » June 13th, 2016, 5:35 am

>
It requires being able to "stand outside of the problem" (not his terminology, but I don't know how else to word it right now) and analyze it as a problem in its entirety. This "standing outside" isn't mind/body dualism, it's simply a certain functional way of solving a problem, not by running through a set of instructions, but by analyzing the structure of the problem and its environment and deriving a solution from that.


So my understanding of analysis is it's a behavior functionally similar to that, the scripting is just wild because it isn't designed by anything other than natural selection. Brain gets input/stimulus, triggers script/behavior, then that runs responding to stimuli and copying information until a positive feedback loop ($i or dopamine or whatever) kills the script and the system/organism disengages. Our change in focus is a little bit like how if you run a whole bunch of programs at once you're going to see your memory usages do some wild things as the scheduler allocates resources. AIs have a learning capability, and I don't really know what meaningfully distinguishes AI from I other than being designed by another intelligence.

>
The theory goes that looking at the sum of brain states at any given time isn't enough to functionally describe an individual's state-of-mind (change around the vocabulary a bit and you'll see that this DOES apply for computers).


I... feel like that's not parsimonious? Have we ever had a problem in the sciences that can't be reduced and simplified to a finite number of states? Physical problems can be expressed with laws and states, chemical reactions can be described with moles and balanced equations, and both of these underlay the physics of the brain. We have troubles with the computational complexity of the brain, but we're damn close to fully simulating the nervous systems of several organisms like C elegans or zebrafish.


>
Consider for example an Alzheimer person who made it a habit to look at their notebook every morning to remember what their plans for the day were. In which way does this person and someone who simply remembers their plans for the next day functionally differ? Andy Clarke, who gave this example, would say "None at all", and while I'm not sure I fully agree, there seems to be a strong case here to assume that certain functions of the consciousness can be realized completely outside of the brain, to the point where the brain isn't just not necessary, but actually worse at providing these functions than a part of the outside world (for example, a notebook) would be. That example is from the 1980s, and looking at our current state of technology REALLY outdated, and I think this is even more obvious today.


I don't really see why efficiency is a big deal. We're not designed to be well designed, we're fit and that's it, we have no reason to expect our brains to be more efficient than paper for the same reason we have no reason to expect the nerve controlling our thyroid not to loop under our heart or our spines to make sense for a bipedal organism. It's not like computers don't exhibit faults either. We can be a badly designed computer/turning machine/whatever and still fundamentally be a computer/turing machine/whatever.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » July 21st, 2016, 2:34 am

How do you teach empathy?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3817
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » July 21st, 2016, 2:38 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How do you teach empathy?

You really can't in my experience. The best you can hope for is that someone who's lacking in empathy has to suffer through some of what they fail to empathize with because if they've suffered through it themselves they're at least more likely to sympathize with others over it. Empathy is really one of those "you either have it or you don't" things.
💙💙💙
Image
Image

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » July 21st, 2016, 5:36 pm

Alice wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How do you teach empathy?

You really can't in my experience. The best you can hope for is that someone who's lacking in empathy has to suffer through some of what they fail to empathize with because if they've suffered through it themselves they're at least more likely to sympathize with others over it. Empathy is really one of those "you either have it or you don't" things.



So, you're kind of hinting at something I was trying to get at. Edgelords like to call it "darkly hinting".

If empathy can't be taught except through "experience" at what point does it become necessary to "teach" it? If empathy can't be taught except through misery at what point does it become necessary to inflict misery to create it?

There's a difference in that and fighting back, but for pragmatic reasons it's usually the same act.

At a fundamental level it's about communication, isn't it? "You're hurting me, stop!" is fine when it works but some people don't speak the language you're using, or can't hear you for whatever reason.

It gets complicated with large scale problems. Can vengeance put upon the shelf be taken out later on someone else? What if it really isn't? Like if you look into Chinese history - Mao wasn't a single front of evil, the nationalists who aren't even really anything like today's Taiwan allowed China to become like Mexico today, probably a lot worse. A country divided up by warlord after warlord keeping the people uneducated and too drugged up to fight back. The cultural revolution was a grassroots response to the conditions a decade or two previous; in fact many of the excesses were illegal by whatever standard, even the CCP's at the time. It seems to me the human superorganism - not individuals, not people on the familiar moral scale - has a predictable response to high inequity and other stresses, and that's revolution.

Drawing a bit back from the idea of communication, part of how humans, bees, ants, and ravens communicate allows us to use a kind of displacement. Bees use it to talk about far away flowers, ants might not even instead just following chemical trails, and ravens do things like tell each other to avoid certain areas.

It's probably wrong to displace that message like that. For a punch to someone being a response to a punch from someone else.

But how do large scale structures communicate their stress then? Because of human nature, our tribal instincts preclude us from really taking other people's pain seriously. We could probably adapt away, but that will take eons, and democracy might fail by then. So then what? How do you enact change when the other tribes making up society are deaf to your pain? Who insist that they know your body, your community, better than you do, as you stand there listening to every signal the structures pass you?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3817
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » July 21st, 2016, 5:52 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:If empathy can't be taught except through "experience" at what point does it become necessary to "teach" it? If empathy can't be taught except through misery at what point does it become necessary to inflict misery to create it?

You actually seem to be mixing up empathy and sympathy. They're two similar but completely different concepts. Empathy is the ability to understand someone else's pain without having gone through the same thing yourself. Sympathy is the ability to connect with someone else's pain because you have gone through it yourself. Sympathy can be learned but empathy really can't. It's either something that comes naturally to someone or something they'll never have. The best you can really hope for with it is that the person in question realizes that a lack of empathy is a bad thing and at least consciously avoids being an asshole due to that lack of empathy.
But how do large scale structures communicate their stress then? Because of human nature, our tribal instincts preclude us from really taking other people's pain seriously. We could probably adapt away, but that will take eons, and democracy might fail by then. So then what? How do you enact change when the other tribes making up society are deaf to your pain? Who insist that they know your body, your community, better than you do, as you stand there listening to every signal the structures pass you?

Unfortunately most humans are far too lacking in self awareness and foresight to actually resist their natural instincts. The best way to get through to people is the be stubborn but not an asshole. Ie: You can combat racism or sexism or homophobia or transphobia by not being hostile or caustic while consistently explaining to people why their views are invalid and, especially, showing through action that their views (which are usually hostility through fear of the unknown or because of misconceptions) are flawed.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 410
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » July 21st, 2016, 7:08 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:But how do large scale structures communicate their stress then? Because of human nature, our tribal instincts preclude us from really taking other people's pain seriously. We could probably adapt away, but that will take eons, and democracy might fail by then. So then what? How do you enact change when the other tribes making up society are deaf to your pain? Who insist that they know your body, your community, better than you do, as you stand there listening to every signal the structures pass you?

You're not really helping the situation here by drawing up yet another "Us versus Them" dichotomy. Of course people will usually care more about circumstances affecting themselves and their peers, but you're severely overstating the influence of "human nature" when you say that, due to supposed tribal instincts, we basically never take anyone else's pain seriously. If you have in mind what I think you do, this is much less a common trait of "human nature" and way more a societal problem of the U.S. specifically.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » July 22nd, 2016, 5:14 am

Alice wrote:The best way to get through to people is the be stubborn but not an asshole.


Aposke wrote: If you have in mind what I think you do, this is much less a common trait of "human nature" and way more a societal problem of the U.S. specifically.



I guess, I feel like I've tried my whole life to put dignity and honor first, only for it to have failed every time. Maybe it's just my personal relationships with failed systems, people neglecting children, the system not knowing how to deal with that, dealing with bullies etc. But when people are up against the same or similar bullshit, it just... aches. And I look at the decent people, and I can't help but wonder what the hell they actually did, knowing that at the very same time it was the indecent people who rocked the boat and made the political machine quiver.

Like when has history ever been bettered by someone actually decent enough to just stand there and take it? The greatest achievements of mankind, it seems to more I think about it, to have all been built on the backs of murderers - from the library of Alexander to the doubled life expectancy, self sufficiency, technological modernization, higher dignity and so on of the followers of Zedong Mao. It's not to justify their unfathomable slaughter of millions of mother's sons or father's daughters.

But it's like, what's evil about what Che did everyone who did nothing let evil triumph? What's evil about what Che did, when my country's rapist slave owning forefathers did the same goddamn thing after Parliament lowered taxes (good for the common man) in order to undercut the sales of illegal, stale, black market teas via French and Spanish traders? What's evil about what Che did, when my country's forefathers went on massive slaughtering sprees against dissentors from their revolution, in large part because the government didn't give them permission to launch genocidal campaigns against their indigenous neighbors as long as they promised to stave off the French? Like I'm expected to be proud of that, but ashamed of people doing what they need to do to communicate effectively, "stop fucking with us, we just want happy lives", because they're doing it today?

The ethics of "do nothing" just mean giving full reign to the evils already at power. The ethics of "do something" means, what, install more evil into power? None of this is conscionable, but in the end the only thing history remembers is consequences. This cycle is endless and disgusting, the kind of trap a sadistic god would weave into the cosmos just because he likes to torture things that can't challenge him. Just, fuck all of this shit.

But maybe, even when monstrosities are punching out (whether that's up or down or into itself), it's because something needs to be communicated, something we all need to listen for, and not fucking dismiss it all just because monstrosities are doing the punching.

Like, there's nothing conscionable about ISIS but maybe it's a clear sign that we need to get our paws off the fucking middle east for a change because we did it actual harm. Or maybe there's nothing conscionable about cop killers but the sort of thing BLM (which I just want to remind you blacklisted the killers way the fuck before any of this went down) is trying to fight is actually a real thing worth actually addressing?


It's just... I guess I'm feeling like I'm losing my religion. Sometimes, at least. Sorry
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3817
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » July 22nd, 2016, 5:32 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:The greatest achievements of mankind, it seems to more I think about it, to have all been built on the backs of murderers - from the library of Alexander to the doubled life expectancy, self sufficiency, technological modernization, higher dignity and so on of the followers of Zedong Mao.

When you really think about it though, that's life in general. With the exception of the very bottom of the food chain, plankton and plants and such, every single other living creature survives through consuming life. And for carnivores and predatory omnivores that's even more true. Not just our civilization but our entire evolution has revolved around murder.
Like, there's nothing conscionable about ISIS but maybe it's a clear sign that we need to get our paws off the fucking middle east for a change because we did it actual harm. Or maybe there's nothing conscionable about cop killers but the sort of thing BLM (which I just want to remind you blacklisted the killers way the fuck before any of this went down) is trying to fight is actually a real thing worth actually addressing?

For the most part we only ended up in the Middle East out of greed and personal interests anyways. Also BLM's message isn't the issue. It's the way they convey that message that most people are that oppose it are taking issue with. They see it as a problem when any black person gets shot by police no matter how justified it actually is and far too many of them focus on the "don't shoot black people" angle rather than the far more valid "police should be held more accountable for their actions and corruption (including things like racism and profiling) should be combated" angle. Then there's also the completely valid opposition argument of addressing some of the major issues causing black people to the target of police violence which is that black people are far more likely to grow up in a poor area and living in poverty increases your likelihood of committing crimes by a huge amount. So if we addressed poverty issues in these areas better (and also education since these areas also typically have some of the most worthless schools in the country) then you'd see a lot of these issues dissipate anyways.
It's just... I guess I'm feeling like I'm losing my religion. Sometimes, at least. Sorry

Frankly I can't blame you. Sometimes I question how humanity has even made it this far when we have people who are so lacking in self awareness and foresight that it's difficult to believe they're actually sentient and not simply instinctual animals.

Then at this point I've kinda just become pretty apathetic towards humanity in general. Like I'll cast my vote and I'll live my life the way I believe is most moral but I've stopped being surprised by how awful humans in general can be and anymore I just generally believe that Sturgeon's Law also applies to humanity and not just forms of media and such.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » August 22nd, 2016, 11:51 pm

How *isn't* the Categorical Imperative just the golden rule?

EDIT: double negatives exist
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby EarthPhantomTS » August 23rd, 2016, 11:45 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How *isn't* the Categorical Imperative just the golden rule?

EDIT: double negatives exist


The Golden Rule requires you take your desires into consideration. The Categorical Imperative requires you not. For instance, if you'd prefer someone lied to you in a certain situation, the Golden Rule says you should lie, while the Categorical Imperative says you shouldn't. So yes, they can come into conflict.

Also, holy shit a question in this thread I can actually answer! Don't see that every day :tstick: :theart: !
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3817
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » August 23rd, 2016, 11:49 am

EarthPhantomTS wrote:Also, holy shit a question in this thread I can actually answer! Don't see that every day :tstick: :theart: !

Interestingly while I commonly don't know the terms being used and do get the basic ideas at least, this is a time I had literally no idea what Tova was talking about, lol. I know of the golden rule but I've never eve heard of the categorical imperative. Though I think from your post I can at least get the basic gist of it. (An objective form of the golden rule rather than subjective as the golden rule itself technically is.)
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
metasomnia
Posts: 126
Joined: March 21st, 2015, 12:52 am
Location: croissants being noisy

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby metasomnia » August 23rd, 2016, 1:02 pm

Alice wrote:I just generally believe that Sturgeon's Law also applies to humanity and not just forms of media and such.

What is Sturgeon's Law? Also I have no idea what the golden rule is either
Have a literal signature:
Image

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » August 23rd, 2016, 1:03 pm

EarthPhantomTS wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:How *isn't* the Categorical Imperative just the golden rule?

EDIT: double negatives exist


The Golden Rule requires you take your desires into consideration. The Categorical Imperative requires you not. For instance, if you'd prefer someone lied to you in a certain situation, the Golden Rule says you should lie, while the Categorical Imperative says you shouldn't. So yes, they can come into conflict.

Also, holy shit a question in this thread I can actually answer! Don't see that every day :tstick: :theart: !


I'm tired and I'm not thinking clearly, but here goes

Not that sure that follows

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

Maxim: Don't let unnecessary harm befall someone if you can trivially help to avoid it

Ergo, lie in situations like that (ergo, we have to posit something fundamentally different - white lies must be morally distinct from big lies and are ok; since it's all semantics games anyways - the CI is a rephrasing of the GR, not a fundamentally different idea - we can easily turn this from head(dependency) lie(white) to white(lie), that is, a whiting of a lie, as opposed to an embiggened lie, as happens in languages like Japanese or Turkish, where adjectives are predicates part of different clauses, not subordinate noun phrases as in Kant's languages or indeed, every non-Armenian non-Aryan IE language))

Same as the golden rule, I think.

It's still arbitrary to me. Every other person is going to have differing opinions on what makes a good law to begin with, but consequences just seem like such a better metric than self-destructive or homocidal people's legal preferences that I don't even know where to begin. Kantian law wouldn't be anymore inherently right or wrong than actual law for all of the same reasons. If there really are multiple moral systems bumping around anyways, why call them moral systems when you can call them preferences? In which case you can go meta and select for maximizing preferences (and thus moral choices under the various systems) with something like preference utilitarianism?

Like frankly there's an inherent problem assigning a moral value to every verb anyways. It's all couched on demonstrably false assumptions like language isn't evolved to be arbitrary, grammatical, and deceitful or that everyone is a rational agent. The classical answer that it's morally wrong to be Schindler (like, fuck) is based on the premise that a murderer is rational in some way.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » August 23rd, 2016, 1:04 pm

metasomnia wrote:
Alice wrote:I just generally believe that Sturgeon's Law also applies to humanity and not just forms of media and such.

What is Sturgeon's Law? Also I have no idea what the golden rule is either

to quote a gay nazi catboi, "go to church lol"
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
metasomnia
Posts: 126
Joined: March 21st, 2015, 12:52 am
Location: croissants being noisy

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby metasomnia » August 23rd, 2016, 1:18 pm

If that's the case then I don't want to know :/
Have a literal signature:
Image

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3817
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » August 23rd, 2016, 1:19 pm

metasomnia wrote:What is Sturgeon's Law? Also I have no idea what the golden rule is either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
Sturgeon's revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's law, is an adage commonly cited as "ninety percent of everything is crap".

Which I personally feel applies to humans as well as simply the media and such people produce.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » August 23rd, 2016, 1:21 pm

metasomnia wrote:If that's the case then I don't want to know :/

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you know basically the whole sermon on the mount if you grew up in an Anglophone country
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
metasomnia
Posts: 126
Joined: March 21st, 2015, 12:52 am
Location: croissants being noisy

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby metasomnia » August 23rd, 2016, 2:09 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Oh, okay. I knew about this particular phrase but I didn't know it was called the golden rule.

Sturgeon's revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's law, is an adage commonly cited as "ninety percent of everything is crap".

Also, literally the same case with this. I've heard of the 90% thing but not what it was called :/

Thanks guys
Have a literal signature:
Image

User avatar
chridd
Posts: 210
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 9:20 pm
Location: the internet
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby chridd » August 23rd, 2016, 5:27 pm

My understanding:
Golden rule: How would you feel/how would you like it if someone did that to you. (I.e., smaller-scale consequences.) You shouldn't murder because you wouldn't like it if people murdered you. You shouldn't lie if you wouldn't want people to lie to you in the same situation.
Categorical imperative: What would happen to society if everyone did that to everyone. (I.e., large-scale consequences.) You shouldn't murder because if everyone murdered, society would fall apart. You shouldn't lie because if everyone lied, no one would believe anyone. (Although smaller-scale, golden rule–like consequences would probably also affect whether you're following the categorical imperative; but my understanding at least of Kant's objection to lying is its effect on society.)


Return to “General Perversion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest