Koroviev
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Koroviev
-
-
Really great work, love it!
-
Good find! I think Stef should do a remake of the second vid
-
1
-
-
If we call it a disorder I bet we can separate them from society and put them on meds. It also, in a sense gives parents an out, "you're not a bad parent your child just has x."
Not saying disorders do not exist or medicines do not help but there is quite an incentive to make the categories as broad as possible. My older brother has cerebral palsy so I grew up around it, but it's always seemed like if he'd been treated a little more "normal" he wouldn't be nearly as bad off as he currently is.
-
2
-
-
The Problem in a Nutshell:
All behaviors have a subset of circumstances for which avoiding them is UPB.I could be wrong but I don't think this is part of UPB. In other words not all "behaviors" are UPB. If I say I don't like the color blue that does not make liking the color blue immoral because me disliking something has nothing to do with the morality of that thing.
If I put out the theory that liking the color blue is immoral that can be dis proven using UPB because liking the color blue is a preference, liking the color blue is not universal, and disliking the color blue is not enforceable. Thus liking the color blue is dis proven by UPB and therefore not moral or immoral. As opposed to murder the opposite of which is a preference (all people prefer being not murdered), cannot be universal (when not murdering immoral), and cannot be enforced (If I'm enforcing murder I'm being immoral by not murdering). Therefore murder is immoral, thus not murdering must be moral.
-
Wasn't this tried back in 1776, and aren't we seeing the results of it today?
-
1
-
-
But the list is so long! Or at least it was last time I checked.y
Yeah I know and definitely agree but it's soo worth it!
-
From what I've heard a "Truth about Pope Francis" would be pretty entertaining.
-
I've listened to UPB through twice. There was nothing baffling. The "shared meaning" more closely represents what I was getting at than "agreement" in that agreement could simply hinge on similar evaluations of some fact or another, whereas "shared meaning" ties into how words are commonly used, shared experience, context, etc.
Yes, I agree with our shared meaning of the idea shared meaning vs the meaning of agreement.
I have also listened through UPB twice and the intro to Philosophy sheds way more light on what he was getting at and how he got there as well as everything we're talking about here. Obviously you don't have to and I really don't care if you do, but arguing against Stef's ideas based on someone else's understanding of them doesn't seem to make sense to me.A good alternative to listening through the series would be to call in.
-
1
-
-
Ok I thought you meant otherwise with the taxi example. What you think of and what I think of are irrelevant. It's the shared practice of linguistic acts that makes them meaningful. I've taken plenty intro philosophy classes, so I'll probably pass for now. Thinking of meaning as stemming from a definition at all is not quite right. Obeying a rule, or using a word correctly, is viewed in light of generally shared practices. When you are cut and exhibit pain behavior and say you are in pain....I don't reference some internal approximation of a definition. We look at what we would generally call "pain" and say yes your are using this word correctly.
Right, but the whole point I'm making is that we have to have some semblance of a shared meaning of pain to have any conversation at all. Generally, that comes from the dictionary but it doesn't have to, and if you have a completely different meaning of the word that should be made when the discussion begins. For example everyone has a different meaning of god therefore if by god you mean quantum physics as opposed to lightning bolt slinging guy in the sky then parties involved can come to that understanding from the get-go.
Also, I doubt your intro to philosophy professors laid the entire groundwork for UPB, so rather than trying to figure out what Stef's thoughts are second hand I'd recommend going straight to the horse's mouth as they say, but suite yourself.
-
"rudeness" in your alternate definition bit seems inappropriate. When I call someone "rude" I mean that they are being unnecessarily hostile or intentionally ignoring social norms i.e. Looking right at someone and laughing as the elevator door shuts before they can get on, instead of holding the elevator. Maybe "ignorant" is better suited for your example? What I mean when I say its not agreement like a contractual agreement is we don't both go "Lets take "pain" to mean this ouchy feeling" "yeah that sounds good to me" Specifically its not that we are agreeing to some laundry list of propositions. Why? because language can be infinitely reassembled for infinitely numbered sentences and meanings. We use words in the same way because those are the customary ways in which these words are used. Dictionaries are shorthand guides for the customs of a given language, but they fall far short of capturing the extent of meaning.
No, rude is exactly what I meant. If I'm giving directions to someone and tell them to go south because to me south means north, when I know that to them south means south it falls right in line with your (and my) definition of rude. I agree that there are different perceptions people have or different images that come to mind when people use words (like when I think of a dog I'm thinking of a different dog than you are) but that does not change the definition of the word dog which we "agree" on through the dictionary. I highly recommend checking out Stef's intro to philosophy series he covers a lot of this and other things in way more detail.
-
Agreement... well I would agree that language must be shared. If you are thinking of it in terms of giving assent to something I would disagree.
Ah, but see that is exactly the issue. Without some external "agreed" upon meaning of words you cannot converse at all. This is why we have dictionaries, and also why dictionaries are living documents that change over time. It is safe to assume when people are having conversations they are using the "dictionary" meaning of the word, if not then the parties involved come to an agreement on the definition that suites the context they are speaking in. If you climb into a cab and purposely say take me to North 25th st when you mean West 54th st that's just rude (and in that circumstance even if you tried to explain your definition of north and 25 the cabby would just end up kicking you out). I'd also argue that it's rude to knowingly go into a conversation with a definition of something that is contrary to what everyone else is assuming.
-
Turns out I'm getting a new work laptop as well thought I'd share:
1 MSI GS60 Ghost Pro 4K-053 Gaming Laptops
15.6" 4K UHD+ (3840x2160) LG IPS Glossy LED backlit LCD
nVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M 192bit w/6.0GB GDDR5
Built-in Steelseries Backlit Keyboard - Programmable Multiple Color Variations
Intel Core i7-6700HQ Processor (2.6~3.5GHz) w/6M L3 Cache - 4 Cores - 8 Threads
Stock Dry Thermal Compound
16GB (2x 8GB) DDR4L/2133MHz Dual Channel Memory
256GB Samsung SM951 M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 AHCI Solid State Drive (up to 2150MB/s Read/1200 MB/s Write- 70K IOPS Write/90K IOPS Read)
1TB SATA III 6Gb/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive
M.2 Killer Wireless-AC N1525 ac/a/b/g/n + Bluetooth 4.1 Combo Card (Max speed: 867Mbps)
Smart Li-ion Battery 6-Cell (4400mAh 49Wh)
http://www.powernotebooks.comusually has some good deals if you're looking to be mobile.
If you can, hold out a couple weeks for skylake
P.S. yeah I have an awesome job
-
It was a joke. If you were joking in your comment, sorry it's hard to tell these things through text.
Yes it was a joke, but I think it embodies a point. Would you not agree that in order to have any meaningful, logical, and/or rational conversation there has to be some agreement on the meaning of words?
-
Interesting game of whack-a-mole, or whack-a-theist here. For every contradiction you bump with the hammer of logic, two more moles come up denying the hammer.
Agreed. In a nutshell god has to be outside of time because god is a self-contradiction and a contradiction to known laws of physics. Therefore god cannot exist in this universe/time/dimension (i.e. cannot exist) but only in another universe/time/dimension (i.e. imaginary-made-up-land). I started the intro to philosophy series the other day and all of the above arguments and more are neatly laid out in that series (http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy specifically parts 6-9) as well as in Against the Gods (https://freedomainradio.com/free/) and I don't think it bears any more discussion here. It's been fun but this obviously is getting nowhere.
Thanks for the fun discussion though.
-
Nice!! I ordered my last one from Cyberpower (highly recommended generally and cheaper than building your own) I've upgraded my PSU to 750 watt and am working on getting a second GTX 970. I definitely recommend getting larger case fans they push more air with less work and therefore last longer. Also, if you haven't found it already https://pcpartpicker.com/is usually a pretty good place to find cheap parts.
CAS:CyberPowerPC X-Titan 100 MID-Tower Gaming Case w/ Side-Window Panel (White Color)
CD:24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive (BLACK COLOR)
COOLANT:Standard Coolant
CPU:Intel® Core™ i7-4790K 4.0 GHz 8MB Intel Smart Cache LGA1150 (All Venom OC Certified)
CS_FAN:Maximum 120MM Case Cooling Fans for your selected case [+9]
FAN:Corsair Hydro Series H60 High Performance Liquid Cooling System 120MM Radiator & Fan (Single Standard 120MM Fan)
HDD:256GB Corsair Force LX Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD – 560MB/s Read & 300MB/s Write [+83] (Single Drive)
HDD2:1TB SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (Single Drive)
MEMORY:16GB (8GBx2) DDR3/2133MHz Dual Channel Memory [+100] (ADATA XPG V3)
MOTHERBOARD:ASUS Z97-K ATX w/ Intel GbLAN, 2 PCIe x16, 2 PCIe x1, 2 PCI, 1 x M.2, 6x SATA 6Gb/s [+3]
POWERSUPPLY:600 Watts - Standard 80 Plus Certified Power Supply - SLI/CrossFireX Ready
VIDEO:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 x16 Video Card (Maxwell) (Single Card)
-
1
-
-
Take the simplest principle I know: The principle of doubling the square. Take a square 1 x 1 and generate a second square that is √2 x √2. This cannot be logicked to as if one were using a calculator or logical notation. The finest computer known cannot arrive at the solution with exactitude. It takes a non-logical, but not illogical, mental leap, typically aided by physical construction (e.g. cut squares out of construction paper and work on rearranging them) to realise the hypotenuse of the first square serves as a side of the larger square. That is what I mean by non-logical creativity. Logic is used to estimate, to correct, but the essential act of hypothesis is imaginative, the creativity is not a pure logical operation as if by computer.
The hole metaphor is just that, a metaphor. If there is a better I would like to hear it, but until then it is all I can give. Analysing it logically as if it were a literal hole misses the point.
Firstly this is false, secondly this is nonsense. With a simple web search you find that the √2 is a constant (pythagoras' constant) similar to pi and has a value of approximately 1.414. The only reason we have a √2 is because of logic (pythagorean theorem) and there are many logical mathematical proofs to back it up. I'm not really sure what you were getting at with your √2 x √2 square, but does it maybe have something to do with the √2 being the diagonal of a 1 x 1 square? Either way √2 is not self contradictory and does not contradict the known laws of physics as the idea of god does.
Among everything else, even if there was some small semblance of consistency in any of your arguments, why would god create man who bases everything off of logic and consistency and knows that anything that isn't logically consistent cannot exist (ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, etc.) fault that same man for not believing in it's existence? How can you claim with a straight face that one thing that is not logically consistent and in fact self-contradictory and contradictory to everything else we know to be true while steadfastly claiming that nothing else that fits that description is. In a nutshell it is just as "probable" that god exists as it is that ghosts, leprechauns, square circles, and magical unicorns exist.
-
1
-
-
I'm not sure where the idea that hypotheses are not logical is coming from. I mean I suppose someone could, and people do, come up with hypotheses that are not logical but those are the ones that get disproven. They get disproven because they are not logically consistent or empirically supported, which is how things are proven to be true. What you are saying is that something that cannot be logically consistent and cannot be empirically proven (also known as false) is true and something that is the opposite of existing exists. Again contradictions. I can make a hypothesis that says when I jump off the roof I will fly away like a bird. Since that is not logically consistent (i.e. Humans are heavier than air and every other human falls to the ground) my hypothesis is false until it can be empirically supported. If it is empirically supported we adjust our laws of physics until they can logically support the new evidence. This is what happened woth universal gravitation. Even your example with the crystal rimmed hole, we can immediately toss out any hypothesis that says it is both square and circular shaped, that it is a hole and a hill, or that it consists of both fire and ice until those things can be empirically shown to exist. Then once they are we have to come up with a logical hypothesis as to how they can be.
-
Mic drop.
This doesn't make sense, to me "mic drop" is when someone picks up a microphone.
-
As I wrote, the difference is between logic, which is uncreative, and intellect, which is. What lets us discover universal physical principles and what is merely playing in the sandbox of the already known? The key is that man as imago viva Dei, made in the image of God, is creative and can access this power in order to increase his power to survive in the highly dangerous "logical universe".
This does not answer the issue thebeardslastcall brought about. How can anyone claim to know anything about something they admittedly can know nothing about? This is one more contradiction to add to the list of contradictions that have already been pointed out. Also, intellect does not ignore logic in fact intellect is based on logic. How can one claim to have intellect without being logical? How can one be creative without consistency?
-
Coming from the apophatic perspective of Nicolaus of Cusa: strictly speaking, God is beyond the Categories, including the category of being. That is, God is so strange, even existence itself can only analogously be applied to Him. In that precise sense is God outside of the universe, eternal, and capable of knowing what free willed entities will choose.
Isn't Nicolaus of Cusa saying we cannot know anything about god?
*side note, so we're on the same page, I'm really not trying to change your beliefs, just enjoying the conversation
-
I have this great love/hate relationship with realizing I'm an idiot
keep up the great work! -
Basically what you are saying is that since god is a "temporal" observer he can both be surprised by our actions, because we have free will, and not be surprised because he already knows what we will choose. Outside of time or "temporal observer" are simply just different ways of saying god exists outside of this universe, but since existence is inherently tied to this universe that means god cannot exist.
-
Such is the difference between a temporal observer and an eternal one.
So a "temporal" observer can be surprised and not surprised at the same time?
-
As a frequent flyer I definitely know what you mean and what you're going through, and honestly it sucks. Just last week I almost missed my flight home from the Denver airport because they were having some kind of initiation/swearing in ceremony. I mean seriously there's a line of 100+ people trying to get through this BS because you're short staffed and theres about 20 of you circled around the flag praying and swearing you allegiance to the TSA. How does that make sense?? On top of all of that I know (from personal experience) how easy it is to get "items" through without even getting a second glance.
Like a lot of things in today's society it's kind of just one of those things you have to just suck up and play along with. It's like the lady at the DMV except since they have a uniform and a badge so they think they have power over you (and technically they do in the moment). Not to mention the brainwashing they go through to make them believe they really are "keeping America safe." If you think about it it truly is Orwellian style brainwashing with the "If you see something, say something" signs everywhere, and the constant loop of "It's for your own safety" playing over the loud speaker all day everyday. It's literally the Stanford prison experiment put into play.
When it comes down to it, they are all just sheep doing their jobs so making their jobs more challenging only makes your experience worse. Some tips that I've found useful:
TSA pre-check - if you can handle the privacy infringement of them ensuring you're a "trusted traveler" this makes your life way easier
Opt-out of body scan - pat-downs may or may not be as intrusive as nudie scanners
make things as easy for them as possible - if you know certain things get checked every time (my razor handle) just take it out ahead of time usually they'll visually inspect it as it's going through
As with cops, politicians, DMV workers, etc. the TSA is just one more govt. worker who those of us outside of the matrix just have to deal with until it all falls apart.
TYFYC
-
1
-
Before we promote anarchy should we not try a functioning democracy?
in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Posted
Ah, but the difference is that with anarchy it is a one to one contractual obligation whereas a democracy is a many to one contractual obligation. In anarchy I can choose not to do business with said anarchist merchant and go about my merry way. Whereas in a democracy the only time I can "chose" not to do business with said "anarchist merchant" is if the majority of other citizens decide they don't want to do business with him either. Also, not only am I contractually obligated to whatever the current majority decides, but so are my children, and their children, and their children, etc. On top of all of that the only merchants I can "chose" to do business with are those who have already been bought and paid for by those who have some interest in them gaining power.
If someone is not enlightened enough to make a good decision in an anarchic society it only effects them. If they aren't enlightened enough to make a good decision in a democracy it effects everyone.