luxfelix
-
Posts
647 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by luxfelix
-
-
I am sincere saying that this whole conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Thinking that the building s were hit by some kind disk, that the films were doctored by CNN, that the recording of callers from the planes where fake, etc. is grotesque. And now, the conspiracy theorists are sure that a miniature nuclear bomb was used. The State is very bad overall, they get do anything right, as we all know. If you all still believe in these disk, video editing and nuclear bomb, then, you should find another culprit: Roswell, ET, you name it.
Thank you for your opinions.
I'm guessing we at least share common ground when it comes to the idea that the official story is inaccurate?
-
The Film Club meets monthly for now in Google Hangout (10 max). The next one is due this Saturday 15 Nov. There will also be a live stream available to unlimited listeners in the thread link I posted previously.
Cool beans!
(I'm now following so I should get an update when it's posted.)
-
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to sound condescending. I'm just saying that I think the people who didn't get that right away and took it literally didn't have the pleasure of enjoying the story as a metaphor and instead tried to enjoy it as an actual event that occurred long, long ago.
Regarding whether they were neanderthals, I'm not sure. They explicitly said they were "cavemen" but I don't know if that means neanderthals. I also don't know if that means that maybe they weren't quite human and therefore weren't really trying to inform humanity with their learning experiences, therefore giving them some leeway with the story they told. Or maybe they went all out from an evolutionary perspective and made the implication that neanderthals and humans mated and created the species as we are today.
Anyway, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to sound condescending! I was just happy I saw it and you saw it too! My bad!
Oh! And regarding the dumb dad trope, I'm really glad they went with it where they did. He was "dumb" for a reason, a really good reason. He just hated new things. So the phenotype of his intelligence was dumb, but the genotype was exactly what was needed to survive, and he put a lot of effort into keeping his family alive because he loved them. The fact that he needed to change and made the effort to keep them alive by changing his perspective showed how much he loved them.
No worries, I didn't think you were condescending.
That's true with Grug, and his growth as a character reinforced the values he already had (love for family).
Thanks I'll take a look at this movie recommendation for the Philosophy Film Club.
Oh yeah, when/where does that take place by the way? -
So now, they used a nuclear bomb to blow the WTC. The state must be very imaginative.
It's hard to tell if you're being sincere or not.
I could be wrong, but your last post might be a straw-man fallacy.
(It's okay, I know I've done this before too. It just takes some practice.
) -
Also, totally an Allegory of the Cave. I saw that in the first few minutes. That was another aspect that had me hooked right away.
Yeah... I suppose it is low-hanging fruit to make that connection.
I could be wrong but, wasn't Guy homo sapiens while the Croods were neanderthals?
Also, I thought at first that there was going to be the dumb dad trope (as in contemporary sitcoms), but I'm glad that didn't end up being the case.
-
The following video is not as in-depth on the scientific evidence, but relevant starting at 1:17:00 (it's one of those documentaries about developments and innovations in human domestication... it's good if you are fuzzy on history, but it's also loooong...
).There's also a dark comedy moment about double-speak at 1:35:00 (and earlier about news report stage sets to support the PR campaign for the Gulf War...).
-
Stefan Molyneux mentioned in one of his videos, something along the lines that, you can't hold a movement/group/etc. responsible for the actions of its members; however, you can hold them accountable for how they respond to those members and/or explain how they don't/didn't follow their established tenets...
(I think this came up after a men's conference he attended where they received bomb threats and had to relocate the conference?)
It also kinda follows that idea about declaring that north is the correct direction to get to your destination while then proceeding to go south (or in this case, to then begin to dig and dig and dig...).
-
I saw it!
I interpreted it as a remix of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
(Put up a spoiler alert and lets discuss.
) -
So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.
I wasn't originally, but in post #26 of this thread he expressed that he was here primarily to learn, and he mentions a personal experience with government unable to help him much (the source for the bomb going off in his brain?); however, the turn to fascism, as well as his emphasis on the logic of violence (despite using happiness as a gauge for ethics...), presents, at least, a disconnect.
(If the violence of the state could not solve the problem (and/or if it was not the cause...?), why would more state violence solve the problem?)
I could be wrong, but it sounds like an ideology impassioned by a desire for vengeance through political power.
Ken, if you are here to learn, I recommend you address why it is you feel this way; I think you'll agree that you must know yourself as well as your enemy in order to triumph.
-
The second major arc of freedom I've seen has been growing up with the internet moving into the mainstream. I was born in 1987, so during my teenage years I was active when cable internet emerged and it became more common. Growing up with the internet in a form more closely related to its current incarnation I have seen the wide range of effects that occurs with anonymity. Anonymity is a form of freedom that generally leads to negative results. Anonymity encourages or allows for increasingly bad behaviour, which is supported by a variety of psychiatric studies. Anonymity, a form of freedom, divorces people from accountability and facing the consequences of their actions. By removing the negative sensation linked to inflammatory or hateful speech ( misogynistic, uneccessarily violent, etc ) of public shame or ridicule you remove one of the main barriers to those actions.
Possible free-market solution to anonymity/troll problems: vid01
Plus, as Kevin Beal pointed out, many people here use pseudonyms while retaining decorum.
-
I think so. He won't actually feel hurt by your disapproval, like a more normal person, but a sociopath can register the information that he's not well-liked. The sociopath would try to avoid doing things that make him less likable because being likable more easily allows him to manipulate people.
I've heard that Bill Clinton in particular always had to be liked by everyone. If he walked into a room and someone didn't care for him, he would focus on that person with all the charm and flattery that he could muster until he could get them to like him.
With reference to Stefan Molyneux's video about Robin Williams, it sounds like Bill Clinton also has to be himself + well-liked; however, whereas Robin Williams worked to provide value (via comedy) to others, Bill Clinton... took a darker path...
-
On language: I do enjoy etymology as a kind of "human history/migration of thought". Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher was an interesting read which asks questions, such as, if-and-how language (and thinking patterns...) affects our perceptions (and he references studies and experiments conducted with these questions in mind). (Side note: I attended a session by the language creator for the Game of Thrones series, and the way he described how he came up with the Dothraki language was, more-or-less, this process in reverse.)
On Confucius: I can see that. His premises for calling things by their proper names (a.k.a. accurate names) and focusing on the family may fit nicely with this community; However, his use of families to support the state (as one large family?) sends off sophist alarm bells.
So, in addition to drawing parallels, is this thread also about finding the nuggets of golden truth in the surrounding dirt of fallacies, or perhaps more appropriate, discovering philosophical Rosetta Stones with archaeological case studies?
-
Ah, that's right.
So, as it is the beginning of wisdom to call things by their proper name (-Confucius), there's also a consistency of behavior/meaning with regards to ethics/philosophy/etc. that transcends language/culture/allegory; 2 + 2 = 4 == two plus two equals four == dos más dos son cuatro (etc.).
If you're reading a text or conversing with someone from a different culture, than this will be helpful to keep in mind; at least etymology from Greek and Latin origins helped(?) cultures of the "Philosophy Club" recognize common meanings between different words, it just takes a little more effort to translate more distant cultures and compare behaviors to discover that they do have parallels.
-
I like the premise of this thread as (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
) a way to show historical examples of philosophy/ethics/etc. generating outside of the "philosophy club" of the "West" in various cultures around the world (how it is truly universal).(I'm referring to Stefan Molyneux's example in the "Truth About Slavery" video?)
I wonder if there's a Pre-Colombian UPB from the Americas...?
-
This is bigotry because we already have nearly unlimited amounts of empirical evidence to the contrary. From people doing what you describe even in the presence of copyright, to people releasing their stuff for free and profiting anyways. Also, the "problem" you present assumes once again that because somebody worked on something, they MUST be compensated. The market will decide what movies are worth. And to some degree already have considering some people have shelled out for the exact same movie on Beta, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, iTunes, Ultraviolet, and other digital download DRMs.
Some support:
-
Quantifying rubber is even hella more complex
This guild thing is the first really interesting idea in this thread I think. But then how would we know if such and such really invented something or just copied something they found and tried to sell their stolen ideas to some companies from the guild? We would need here too examiners who could check some invention registry to see if the ideas are new or not.
Also, the guild would work only if most companies belong to it.
It seems to me that finding a better and workable alternative to patents is even more complex than improving tyres.
By the way, suppose a company infringes a patent knowingly, why can't the patent holder tell the infringing company: you are infringing, please stop doing so until 2020? This is actually already what is often done.
Maybe this can be accomplished through societal ostracism (as in the Downton Abbey video) and/or the bargaining mechanism, borrowing from the DRO concept (in this case, based ultimately on customer choice for patent holders)?
Relevant portion starts at 02:50 for bargaining mechanism:
-
The buyer of a government asset could make theirpayment to everyone who isnt buying it. Some clearinghouse type function would be needed.
All that aside I see only a gradual transition and not an instant one.
I'm reminded of the production triangle where each corner represents "fast", "cheap", and "good" respectively, and we can only choose two.
This could be inaccurate to the conversation, yet it sounds as though peaceful parenting/self-knowledge/ethics-based relationships would occupy the "good" and "cheap" corners (where "cheap" is interpreted as generally less expensive than, say, an armed rebellion in terms of life/property/opportunity cost).
Although it would be swell to see a peaceful society at large in our lifetimes, If slow and steady will win this race, then it will be worth it for peoples in the future.
-
I really like this idea!
Where/how did you come up with idea to design an armorial achievement?
-
I think one of the most crucial steps in my studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, and striving towards happiness was
.Ah, me too!
For anyone reading this, go check out the link if you've not seen the video before (it's less than ten minutes).
Here's another version about five minutes long:
-
A common theme in horror, haunting in particular, is that of the replaying of trauma; some of these stories feature a detective element that suggests that if the trauma can be addressed, then the ghost/spirit/tulpa can at last rest in peace. There can be something reassuring about this, that one can address past traumas (through the process of self-knowledge) and release the stress, coming to catharsis.
The theory in the following video is more of the, "this person's eternal torture will serve as a lesson to others" view of horror; a consequence for heinous acts that, imagining the criminal's perspective, leaves a lingering horror:
-
(1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown.
1/1 = 1
What you are talking about I think is electricity. Yes, the electron is not"knowable". However, there does seem to be a disproportionate capacity of recoverable energy bound up in that stubborn little sun of a bitch. I mean, quantitatively (I know you guys like that word) the proton carries almost 100% of atomic mass, unfortunately it only carries only a measly of 1+ electromagnetic quanta for all of its bravado. The almighty electron on the other hand, well is has no mass, tiny wavelength, temperamental disposition but all of the power. Goddamn, you ever seen a 80 tonne panzer 5 roll up on your position powered by nothing more than than a diesel electric motor(me neither but it sounds scary)? Hey! said electron carries some ballast in the atomic scale doesn't it?
lux felix, I do not know if this was a reference to my comments but I hope you are not trying to straw man my arguments to a "this is what we do not know about the universe" deity, that is not what I am going for. I didn't even begin you read # 4&5 points.
Do you see me standing on an ivory tower commanding doctrine to my local fiefdom to the benefit of my local monopoly? I have nothing to gain or loose going against the grain, this is my intellectual pursuit of reality. My spirit for integrity is as fierce as you will ever encounter, admittedly I am that to a fault.
All I can say is this: if your measured margins for errors are overwhelming your counter forces(ie gravity vs electro-magnetism), then who gives a shit about the counter forces (strong nuclear forces)? F your devil is in the details and look at the big picture. What are the predominant process? What is the end product of the predominant process? Can I relate to the energy balance before process? can I relate to the energy balance after process? How do any of these relationships relate to me and what does it mean? These are the question that science is phenomenal at revealing but are never truly addressed. "Oh, we need funding to figure our new quark flavor out! that will fix quantum" is the mantra.
Feel free to explore my content to unearth my appreciation for academic integrity. Funny enough that seems to me to be what the whole of the modern human world (of which I have no claims to be a part of) seems to be entirely void of.
I think it's just a misunderstanding; That post was in response to EndTheUsurpation as an attempt to translate a series of poetic stanzas (appeals to the senses) into philosophical terms and to see if it is still of value there as well, or if it only serves as flowery language (like if it's an accurate model of a Hydrogen atom or something painted in visually appealing paints and brushstrokes
).If it does hold up well in both languages (or is at least able to be adjusted into an accurate model that is of value and interest), then I would attempt to then translate it into scientific terms; Anything that does not fit with all three languages simultaneously would then be removed from that center section of "white light" to streamline/refine an answer to the original post of this thread.
The criticisms are generally self-directed since I'm learning to improve my philosophical and scientific language skills, and since I find it easiest to communicate through an artistic perspective that, on its own, is at best incomplete, and at worst is sophistry.
-
Or is this a fantasyyyyyy
At first I thought it read, "or is this a fallacyyyyyy"
-
I do believe the myelin sheath on my neurons is melting. Did you just say that god is a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment? It's setting my sophist alarm bells off right now, but otherwise I find what you wrote truly poetic. We will have to break this one down later when I have some sleep behind me.
Thank you.
It's funny that you mention sleep, because the five stanzas were a result of automatic-ish writing (more akin to dream journaling actually). God as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment sounds like a fair interpretation (I'll come back to this). I included the stanzas as a response to the original post, that what might convince one of god's existence would be a redefining (I can see how that would also set off a sophist alarm bell).
(The other questions might be, "is that even necessary? Is there anything from the pantheon of history worth keeping or studying?")
(Regarding redefinition, that there is no square circle, but we could make a square shape by lining up multiple circles might fall under the "moving the goal post" problem in an attempt to prove its possibility based on one's perspective... it's poor execution... we can do better...
)The five stanzas are structured in a way that redefines god multiple times (which is likely unhelpful...) while focusing on numerical perspective:
(1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown.
(2) Further elaborating that the split (designating something like a god that is exempt and/or separate from the world) is an illusion (mirage) that serves the conquerors (supported by sophists) whose will it is to divide and conqueror = us vs. them (or self-attack...) = 1/2, however =/= 2/1 as "bad" (male/female, night/day, etc.), just that the separate designation of an arbitrary exception with regards to universal claims is self-detonating (i.e. sending someone a letter describing how letters never get delivered...).
(3) Introducing a triptych perspective of viewing "god", as defined through Science/conscious (god as algorithm), Art/subconscious (god as awe), and Philosophy/collective conscious(?) (god as misnomer) = 3/3 = Red, Green, and Blue light mixing to form white light = all three needed for an accurate and complete definition of god.
(4) Using a three-ringed Venn diagram to describe stages of knowledge (for both individuals and society at large?) from what can be labeled "true" from all three (logos, pathos, and ethos), what can only be labeled "true" from one or two of the three, what can only be labeled "true" by one of the three, and what can not be labeled "true"/is unknown to any of the three = 4/4 = "enlightenment leads to benightedness, science entails nescience" -Philippe Verdoux = god as the unknown -or- god as man's quest to know = there is no direction on the diagram that one could go to "reach god" (the unknown) but through an expansion of the center section via expansion in the field(s) of your choosing (mixing what you discover with the discoveries of others to form more and more "white light").
(5) Continuing with an explanation of how that expansion can take place through exchanges within a free market = god as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment (I like the way you summed it up by the way!) = the invisible hand of the market = 5/5 (as in five fingers and also possibly for capital archetypes...?) = the will (god as will?) prerequisite to trade freely = increasing levels of complexity and entropy(?).
... I hope this was a helpful unpacking (I know it's long...).
-
You are talking about copyright here. There cannot be copyright on a tyre formulation improvement, even if it makes the car run better and longer.
From what I understand, copyright and patents are both forms of intellectual property; what is the fundamental difference between the two?
You suggest I partner with people to manufacture tyres? But my inventions are just a very small part of the tyre manufacturing. You suggest I partner with someone who will set up a donation system for my inventions? But my inventions potentially interest only 15 people in the world. You need a lot more than 15 donators to make a living. Besides, do you see Michelin donating? This is not quite their business model.
Ok, suppose Michelin is with DRO A, and so am I. Goodyear is with DRO B, from another country. What do we tell Goodyear? Remove the stuff from your tyres! But these companies are already starting law suits against each other constantly. With all these DROs and tons of claims, from thousands of inventions, this would be complete chaos.
I always thought that patents were not so bad, and that it was impossible to come up with anything else that can work remotely as well. The alternatives you have given me so far lead me to completely stop doing what I do.
Let me try one more time: my customers are big corporations who file patents on a daily basis. The only way for me to sell them something is either by being employed by one of them or using a method to deter them to use my work for free. There is a benefit for the community: my improvements benefit the entire community, as opposed to the buyers of a single brand. Because I do not grant a single corporation the monopoly, the corporation cannot use its acquired monopoly to sell its product more expensive.
I sell (I do not set the prices) for, say, 25 million (maybe more if I am lucky) an improvement that saves the consumer, say, 10 billion (a couple dollars over the lifetime of each set of tyres incorporating the improvement, maybe more, maybe $10). The manufacturers do not make money on the invention. They just take the invention because without taking it they have a tiny disadvantage.
Let's examine the case where I had worked for one of the manufacturers (provided I had be willing to work as hard, which I doubt). The company would have paid me in salary over 10 years, something like 1 or 2 million, say. it would have sold its tyres slightly more. The consumer of that company would have saved maybe 1 billion, the company would have pocketed maybe 500 million.
The balances are:
The independent inventor solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 million taken from the consumers in total
The employed inventor solution: 1 billion saved by consumer, only a tenth of the consumers benefiting from the improvement, 500 million taken from the consumers in total.
The donation, lectures, published papers solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 thousands taken from I don't know in total
Note that 50 million out of 10 billion, and more, is merely 0.5%. So, I offer the consumers the possibility to save, say $10 each, provided that they give me 5 cents. They get to keep $9.95.
If I understand you all, the only moral solution is when the consumer gets to keep $9.999.
I'm describing options from what I've learned about how free markets work, as well as my limited experience interacting with others for mutual gain.
In your example, Goodyear may or may not have agreed to use and respect a patent system. If they signed with a DRO that does not acknowledge patents, then you could try to work cooperatively with them for future gains or refuse to share any future discoveries with them etc. until they agree to acknowledge your patents.
Thank you for your clarification. If that's the way you feel, then continue to work with patents. I do not fault you for using them now, and even in a free society I would not fault you for using them; patent systems do not have to be the casus belli they oft become, and if you continue to profit from a patent system without inflicting violence on others than more power to you!
One more example I would like to share: Patents/copyrights are not used in the fashion industry, and yet there are many examples of wealthy couturiers. They actively copy each other and do not fear losing profits to knock-off brands.
I want you to succeed without misgivings because you've expressed your concerns and intent to be moral, and you obviously have the know-how to invent and profit from your work; that is the purpose of this thread is it not?
Comics
in General Messages
Posted
I'm pretty sure I caught all the references, but the 4th one (space monkey) was the hardest one for me to understand (it's scatological humor, no?).
Also, a few friends of mine started an online comic (and eventually other media) company, and they're looking for more talent. (I recently took a trip to New York Comic Con to help sell comics at their booth and I had a blast!)
At the very least, I can e-mail introduce you since you two share career goals, if you'd like.